S33r 


M 


*' 


'**5l1 


Unity  of  the  chi^rch:  Apostolic  '^ucce.'-jsion 
Three  discourses 


James  Harvey  Otey 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Wfit  Winitn  of  tfie  etitttcft : 


THREE  DISCOURSES 


BY 


RT.   REV.    JAMES   HERVEY   OTEY,   D.   D. 


BISHOP    OF    TENNESSEE. 


"  Prove  all  things  ,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 


JNEW  YORK: 

PUBLISHED    BY    DANIEL    DANA,    Jr, 

20    JOHN    STREET. 

1845. 


0 


The  following  sermons  were  written  and  preached  more 
than  a  year  ago  in  the  discharge  of  parochial  duty,  and  with- 
out any  expectation  or  intention  of  their  publication.  They 
make  no  pretensions  to  literary  merit  and  no  such  distinction 
is  claimed  for  them.  Composed  literally  "  currente  calamo^'' 
they  are  given  to  the  public,  just  as  they  were  preached,  with 
the  exception  of  two  or  three  additional  quotations  in  the  first 
of  the  series,  the  notes  and  the  appendix. 

The  writer  has  no  expectation  that  these  discourses  will 
prove  palatable  to  the  great  majority  in  this  country  "  who  call 
themselves  Christians."  Yet  he  is  not  without  hope  that  their 
farts,  statements  and  arguments,  if  duly  weighed,  will  lead 
to  further  examination  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  concerned 
"  to  know  the  truth."  "  And  if  for  necessary  truth's  sake  only, 
any  man  will  be  offended,  nay  take,  nay  snatch  at  that  offence 
which  is  not  given,  I  know  no  offence  for  that.  'Tis  truth 
and  I  must  tell  it ;  'tis  the  Gospel,  and  I  must  preach  it.  And 
far  safer  it  is  in  this  case  to  bear  anger  from  men  than  a  woe 
from  God." 

Columbia,  July  1,  1843. 


460033 


SERMON  I. 

"  AND  HE  IS  THE  HEAD  OF  THE  BODY,  THE  CHURCH." 

COLOSSIANS,  i.  18. 

St.  Paul,  the  apostle,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Golossians  after 
the  salutations  with  which  he  commonly  begins  his  letters,  pro- 
ceeds to  speak  of  the  great  power  and  dignity  of  the  Redeemer. 
He  enlarges  on  this  topic  for  the  purpose,  probably,  of  strength- 
ening the  confidence  and  hope  of  the  christians  at  Colosse  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  encouraging  them  to  "  fight  the  good 
fight  of  faith."  By  declaring  in  the  most  ample  terms  Christ's 
exalted  power  and  dignity,  he  would  raise  them  above  the  fear 
of  trial  and  persecution  in  this  life,  to  which  they  were  constantly 
exposed,  and  would  inspire  them  with  a  trust  in  the  Saviour, 
that  would  disarm  even  death  of  his  terrors.  For,  whom  could 
they  reasonably  dread,  when  so  much  power  was  engaged  in 
their  behalf  and  for  their  protection  ?  "  For  by  him,"  says  the 
apostle,  "  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  Heaven,  and  that 
are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or 
dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers ;  all  things  were  created 
by  him,  and  for  him ;  And  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him 
all  things  consist ;  and  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church ; 
who  is  the  beginning,  the  first  born  from  the  dead ;  that  in  all 
things,  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence. 

Under  the  guidance  and  safe-guard  of  such  a  friend,  the  saints 
at  Colosse,  might  well  rise  superior  to  all  the  discouragements 
and  difficulties  which  encompassed  them  in  their  journey 
through  this  \veary  world,  and  look  forward  with  composure 
to  the  approach  of  that  inevitable  hour,  when  they  must  sink 
into  the  grave  under  the  stroke  of  death. 

We  would  do  well,  brethren,  to  remember  that  the  same  mercy 
embraces  us,  that  the  same  power  is  engaged  for  our  protection, 
that  the  same  gracious  Redeemer  is  our  unfailing  friend,  and 


that  in  reliance  upon  him  we  are  authorized  to  cherish  the  same 
blessed  hopes  for  time  and  for  eternity. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  us,  as  worthy  of  observation  in 
the  text,  is  the  singular  terms  in  which  the  apostle  speaks  of 
the  Church.  It  is  called  a  body— a.  body  of  which  Christ  is 
the  head. 

The  head  is  the  scat  of  all  those  mental  perceptions  which 
enable  us  to  exercise  our  judgment,  and  by  which  the  actions 
of  the  body  are  controlled  and  directed.  So  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  being  head  of  the  church  is  the  source  of  all  wisdom, 
power  and  dignity  in  it.  The  meaning  of  the  Apostle's  meta- 
phor, we  conceive,  to  be  fully  cleared  by  this  brief  and  simple 
explanation.  Perhaps  many  points  of  resemblance  might  be 
sought  out,  yet  they  would  probably  be  of  a  fanciful  character 
and  tend  little  to  edification. 

^,  .,       .  As  the  church  is  here  and  elsewhere  in  Scrip- 

Unity     of  ^ 

the  Primitive      ture  expressly  called  a  body*  we  are  at  once  and 

Church.  necessarily  reminded  of  the  unity  which  should 

distinguish  it  in  faith  and  practice.  As  the  members  of  the 
natural  body  are  united  together  and  to  the  head,  by  the  veins, 
arteries,  and  nerves,  so  the  members  of  the  church  are  united 
with  one  another  and  to  Christ  the  head,  by  the  spirit,  faith, 
love,  sacraments,  word  and  ministry.  "  There  is  one  faith,  and 
one  baptism,"  saith  the  apostle,  in  the  very  same  connexion,  in 
which  he  declares  that,  "  there  is  one  body."t 

It  must  be  clear  even  to  slight  reflection,  that  in  the  first  pro- 
mulgation of  the  gospel  and  in  the  gathering  together  of  the 
church,  believers  were  perfectly  united  in  the  profession  of  the 
same  faith  and  in  submission  to  the  same  ordinances.  The  cir- 
cumstances by  which  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  were  sur- 
rounded, measurably  compelled  them  to  union :  and  that  they 
were  so  united  is  manifestly  set  forth  in  the  declaration  that 
"  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apostle's  doctrine  and  fellow- 
ship, and  in  breaking  .of  bread  and  in  prayers."  t  It  was  the 
prayer  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  among  the  last  which  he,  as 
man,  addressed  to  the  Father  concerning  his  disciples,  that 
"they  all  might  be  one."§  And  it  adds  to  the  affecting  interest 
of  this  prayer,  to  consider,  that  the  divine  Redeemer  seems  to 

•  1  Cor.  X.  17.  Eph.  i.  23:  iv.  It5.  t  Eph.  iv.  4,  .5. 

{  Acts  ii.  42.  §  St.  John  xvii.  20, 21. 


regard  the  unity  of  his  church,  as  a  necessary  evidence  to  the 
world  that  the  Father  had  sent  him.  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone ;  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through 
their  word ;  That  they  all  may  be  one ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in 
me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us :  that  the 
world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me^'' 

"  That  they  all  may  be  one" — one  in  love — one  in  faith— one 
in  practice — one  in  hope.  This  oneness  of  the  christian  church 
continued  with  but  little  interruption,  until  the  perilous  and  puri- 
fying times  of  persecution  ceased  and  believers  began  to  exer- 
cise themselves  about  questions,  which  in  their  discussion, 
instead  of  ministering  grace  to  those  who  heard,  tended  rather 
to  strifes  and  divisions,  and  the  evil  works  which  usually  attend 
upon  contentions. 

Divisions  of  the  christian  name  have  at  length  Present  divi- 
so  multiplied  that,  in  our  day,  it  seems  that  the  ™"s- 
question  is  rarely  made,  whether  such  things  are  allowable 
under  the  law  of  Christ.  It  appears  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
that  men  will  differ  in  their  religious  views — that  differences  are 
inevitable  from  the  very  corfstitution  of  men — that  they  will 
have  their  preferences,  and  that  these  preferences,  no  matter 
upon  what  grounds  they  may  be  entertained,  may  be  safely 
indulged  to  the  extent  of  attaching  oneself  to  any  society  what- 
ever that  professes  to  be  christian.  In  short,  there  seems  to  be 
a  very  widely  diffused  persuasion  in  the  public  mind,  that  one 
denomination  of  professed  Christianity  is,  as  to  authority,  about 
as  good  as  another.  Hence  we  hear  of  many  different  associa- 
tions styled  churches — the  deluded  followers  of  Joe  Smith,  the 
Mormon  prophet,  and  others  equally  ignorant  and  fanatical- 
appropriating  to  themselves  this  venerable  and  once  venerated 
appellation.  Hence  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the 
exercise  of  a  salutary  discipline  has  almost  ceased  ^  ^r  ^ct'^^'bf 
among  the  professed  followers  of  Christ,  it  being 
found  impossible  to  prevent  the  reception,  to  what  are  called 
church  privileges,  of  those  repelled,  rejected  or  expelled  by  some 
association  calling  itself  christian,  and  hence  the  chief  aim  of  the 
various  sects  of  the  age,  seems  to  be,  to  gain  influence  and 
power,  by  adding  to  their  numerical  strength,  rather  than  to 
promote  true  piety  and  godliness  among  men. 

Can  any  serious  and  reflecting  person,  however,  really  think 


8 

that  the  various  bodies  of  men,  who  are  known  under  the  name 
of  churches  of  Christ,  are  verily  authorized  to  act  in  his  name, 
and  impart  to  others  authority  to  administer  the  sacraments  of 
his  religion  ?  Especially  can  they  so  think,  when  they  perceive 
the  practical  results  to  which  such  opinions  lead  in  the  countless 
divisions  in  which  the  professed  followers  of  Christ  are  now 
scattered  ?  in  the  bitterness  and  rancour  which  opposing  sects 
exhibit  towards  each  other  ? 

Part  -s  irit  Without  the  introduction  of  some  restraining  prin- 
must  be  res-  ciple  to  Counteract  this  general  disposition  among 
trained.  ^^^^^  ^^  ^1^^  present  day  to  separate  into  parties,  it 

must  be  too  evident  to  need  proof,  that  every  thing  like  unity 
among  christians  will  be  at  an  end.  The  only  bond  to  draw 
men  together  in  ecclesiastical  associations  will  then  be  inclina- 
tion and  interest  or  accidental  circumstances  growing  out  of  the 
intercourse  of  social  life.  And  when  these  cease  to  operate  or  to 
have  influence,  new  divisions  must  ensue  from  a  change  of  cir- 
cumstances or  of  relations  in  an  ever  varying  and  changing 
world,  until  every  distinctive  feature  of  the  christian  system  and 
of  the  church,  one  after  another,  shall  pass  away  and  the  whole 
be  divested  of  that  divine  authority  which  alone  can  and  ought 
to  give  it  sanction  and  weight  with  men.  Indeed  if  these  sepa- 
rations into  distinct  bodies  or  communities  be  allowable,  there 
seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  every  man  should  not  act  for 
himself  and  family  in  the  affairs  of  religion,  without  the  inter- 
vention or  aid  of  any  ministry  whatever.  And  certainly  those 
who  at  this  day  have  discarded  all  authority  in  the  church,  act 
consistently  in  administering  the  rites  of  religion  at  all  times,  in 
all  places,  and  to  all  persons  who  ask  for  them,  without  reference 
to  any  rule,  law  or  custom  upon  the  subject.  They  act  consis- 
tently, we  say,  with  their  avowed  principles.  Whether  these 
principles  be  in  accordance  with  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as 
interpreted  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  is  another 
and  very  diflbrcnt  matter. 

An  idea  seems  to  prevail  quite  extensively  that 

J^f,  f "  ^1^       Christianity  in  its  doctrines  and  forms  is  suscepti- 
ble of  improvement  like  the  arts  and  sciences,  and 
that  new  discoveries  are  to  reward  investigation  into  it,  as  in 
other  things.     Hence  old  fashioned  views  of  religion — such  as 
teaching  children  the  catechism,  and  training  them  to  the  habit- 


iial  practice  of  devotion  and  other  christian  duties,  are  not  only 
rejected  but  actually  ridiculed  as  savouring  of  earthliness,  and 
the  self-constituted  reformers  of  the  age  set  forth  their  own  pecu- 
liar sentiments  with  all  the  positive  confidence  and  directness 
of  assertion  which  attach  to  the  claim  of  infallibility.  There  is 
truth  in  the  maxim  which  says  that  extremes  meet,  and  those 
who  first  set  out  with  a  denial  of  all  authority  are  presently 
found  claiming  all  authority  for  themselves. 

This  is  strikingly  shown  in  the  movements  of  a 
modern  sect  called  by  themselves  Reformer's,  but  have  failed  to 
better  known  among  us  under  the  appellation  of  dispense  with 
Camphellites.  And  here  I  beg  to  be  understood 
not  as  mentioning  names  reproachfully,  but  simply  for  the  sake 
of  illustration.  Among  those,  as  well  as  among  others  to  whom 
I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  in  this  discourse,  I  am  free  to  de- 
clare, and  I  take  pleasure  in  saying,  that  I  believe  there  are 
many  humble,  pious  and  sincere  believers,  "  who  through  faith 
and  patience  are  striving  to  inherit  the  promises." 

One  of  the  characteristics  of  the  sect,  already  named,  is  the 
rejection  of  all  creeds  and  the  avowed  adoption  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  their  place,  as  the  only  and  all-sufficient  standard 
of  faith  and  practice.  If,  say  they,  Creeds  are  contrary  to  the 
New  Testament,  they  are  wrong  and  ought  to  be  rejected.  If 
they  are  in  accordance  with  it,  they  are  at  least  unnecessary  and 
may  be  injurious.  There  is  plausibility  in  this  reasoning — full 
as  much  as  that  which  decided  the  fate  of  the  famous  library 
of  Alexandria, — but  far  more  sophistry  concealed  under  an  exte- 
rior of  much  candor  and  fairness.  The  word  creed,  means 
what?  undoubtedly,  belief.  And  it  matters  not  in  principle 
whether  it  consist  of  one  article  or  twenty.  Now  when  we 
come  to  ask  these  people  who  have  undertaken  to  reform  Chris- 
tianity, or  rather  the  church,  what  they  believe  to  be  meant  by 
christian  baptism,  they  unhesitatingly  declare,  that  it  is  immer- 
sion in  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost :  * 

*  The  form  of  Words  in  baptizing  is  not  the  same  with  all  the  preachers  or  pro- 
claimers  among  these  people.  Some  use  the  common  form,  "  I  baptize  thee,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Others  of  them  say 
«' By  the  authority  of  the  Messiah  I  baptize  thee  for  the  remission  of  sins" — and 
some  here  add,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c."  Others  again  "  I  baptize  thee 
into  the  name  of  Jesus  for  the  remission  of  sins." 


10 

and  that  no  affusion,  pouring  or  sprinkling  of  water,  can  be  pro- 
perly regarded  as  baptism.  Conseq^^jently  all  persons  who  have 
been  baptized  in  any  other  way  than  by  immersion,  they  con- 
sider as  yet  without  the  pale  of  the  church  and  strangers  to  the 
covenants  of  promise.  And  their  practice  accords  herewith  ;  for 
no  person  can  or  will  be  received  into  what  they  are  pleased  to 
style  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  or  of  Christ,  without  submitting  to 
be  immersed. 

Thus  we  see  then,  that  while  they  profess  to  reject  all  creeds, 
they  nevertheless  strenuously  maintain — and  right  they  are  for 
doing  this — that  interpretation  of  the  language  of  scripture  which 
they  believe  to  be  the  truth  of  God :  and,  consequently  do,  in 
practice,  uphold  the  very  thing  which  they  condemn'  in  others. 
For  a  creed  was  never  intended  to  express  any  thing  more  than 
what  was  conceived  to  be  the  meaning  of  holy  scripture.  It  is 
the  purpose  of  the  creed  to  express  in  as  brief  a  form  as  possible 
the  leading  facts  and  main  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion, 
and  so  far  from  having  the  effect,  as  is  ailed ged,  of  separating 
men  into  parties,  just  the  contrary  object  is  aimed  at,  and  just 

the  opposite  result,  for  the  most  part,  obtained  by 
^Creed         ^^^^^  ^^^^'     ^°  man,  who  believes  in  the  divine 

authority  of  the  New  Testament,  will  object  to  a 
single  article  of  what  is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Much  of  it 
is  in  the  very  language  of  scripture,*  and  that  which  is  not,  is 
nevertheless  so  plainly  deducible  from  it,  that  no  intelligent  per- 
son will  deny  that  it  is  built  upon  the  express  authority  of  God's 
holy  word.  No  really  sound  objection  therefore  can  be  urged 
against  its  use.  On  the  other  hand,  the  many  valuable  purposes 
which  it  serves  by  presenting  a  concise  summary  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  forming  a  bond  of  union  among  the  followers 
of  Christ,  will  always  vindicate  the  wisdom  of  retaining  it  among 
our  forms  of  public  worship.  The  precise  period  of  time  at  which 
this  creed,  venerable  for  its  antiquity,  was  composed,  is  not 
known  with  certainty.  No  doubt  it  was  very  near  to  the  apos- 
tles' times,  though  we  cannot  assert  that  it  belongs  to  the  very 
age  in  which  they  lived  and  preached.  It  is  as  near  a  tran- 
script of  what  they  taught,  very  briefly  expressed,  a'S  can  well 
be  conceived.     Indeed  some  learned  men  have  given  it  as  their 

•  See  1  Cor.  xv. 


11 

opinion  that  this  creed  was  formed  as  an  abstract  from  the  apos- 
tohc  writings,  and  intended  as  far  as  possible  to  supply  the  want 
of  the  sacred  books  among  people  who  had  not  the  opportunity 
to  read  them,  as  likewise  to  furnish  an  outline,  to  ignorant  peo- 
ple, incapable  of  reading,  of  what  things  they  were  required  to 
believe  in  order  to  their  becoming  christians.  Purposes  which 
the  creed  is  admirably  adapted  to  answer,  as  any  one  may  be 
easily  convinced  of,  who  undertakes  to  teach  the  unlearned  the 
main  doctrines  of  revelation  and  their  own  corresponding  duties. 

But  one  of  the  chief  and  among  the  most  excellent  purposes 
which  the  creed  answers,  especially  by  its  introduction  into  the 
worship  of  the  congregation  is  the  preservation  of  unity,  among 
the  members  of  the  body.  It  is  thus  that  we  are  all  enabled  to 
"  speak  the  same  thing,"  and  "  be  perfectly  joined  together,"  as 
the  apostle  enjoins,  "  in  the  same  mind  and  the  same  judgment." 
It  is  thus  we  confess  Christ  "  before  men,"  profess  "  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  preclude  all  just  occasion  for 
divisions. 

It  is  thus  too,  that  liberty  of  conscience  is  secured.  Not  that 
sort  of  liberty,  which  amounts  to  free  thinkings  which  spurns 
all  restrictions  and  limitations  upon  the  reason  and  judgment, 
which  puts  at  defiance  all  law  and  authority,  and  sets  up  its 
own  dictum  as  the  infallible  truth  of  God.  This  is  licentious- 
ness and  not  liberty.  This  is  that  wild  spirit  of  insubordina- 
tion, which  under  the  name  of  freedoin  has  never  failed  to  ex- 
ercise an  iron  despotism  over  the  minds  of  men,  wherever  and 
whenever  an  opportunity  was  presented.  Of  this,  the  past  his- 
tory of  the  world  has  furnished  abundant  and  striking  exam- 
ples, and  it  is  in  truth  the  real  foundation  of  nearly  all  the 
systems  which  Sectarianism  has  introduced,  defended  and  es- 
tablished. 

The  Apostles'  and  Nicene  creeds  contain  an  outline  of  the 
main  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  They  deal  with  gene- 
ral principles ;  *  they  set  forth  not  a  single  peculiarity,  except  as 
it  may  distinguish  Christianity  from  all  other  religions  ;  nor  do 
they  enunciate  a  single  fact,  or  declare  a  single  doctrine  in  which 
the  vast  majority,  if  not  all  christians,  do  not  agree.  And  here 
is  a  leading  point  of  difference  between  the  Protestant  Episcopal 

•  These  as  applied  in  practice  are  extended  and  explained  in  the  worship,  offi- 
ces, &.C.  of  the  church. 


12 

Church  and  the  various  dissenting  bodies  around  her.     She  re- 
quires the  reception  only  of  that  which  was  confessedly  ac- 
knowledged in  the  primitive  church  as  the  chris- 
tween  the  Epis-    tian  faith — as  of  universal  belief  and  no  less  uni- 

copai  Church  versal  practice.  The  Nicene  creed  was  put  forth 
and  others.  7     -,    ■  ,  ■,    •     ,  /.     , 

as  embodying  the   sense    and  judgment  of  the 

church  of  Christ,  as  early  as  the  year  325  (A.  D.)  and  in  con- 
demnation of  the  Arian  heresy  which  then  began  to  disturb  the 
unity  of  the  body.  Whatever  can  be  shown  to  be  of  endoubted 
belief  and  practice,  among  the  whole  body  of  believers  previous 
to  that  time,  we  hold  to  be  obligatory  upon  us  at  this  day,  as 
members  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ.  We  call  on  no  man 
to  subscribe  to  any  thing  peculiar  and  distinct  from  what  was 
thus  believed  and  practised,  in  order  to  his  becoming  a  chris- 
tian. The  demand  made  is,  "  dost  thou  believe  all  the  articles 
of  the  christian  faith  as  contained  in  the  apostle's  creed  ? "  and 
upon  the  affirmative  profession  thus  made,  we  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  blessed  and  adorable  Trinity,  and  receive  the  sub- 
ject into  the  visible  church,  as  a  member  of  Christ's  body.  Not 
so  with  the  self-styled  Reformers  of  this  age,  who  insist  upon 
immersion  as  indispensable  to  admission  into  the  visible  fold  of 
Christ.  Not  so  with  Presbyterians,  who  set  forth  in  their  "  Con- 
fession of  Faith,"  that  "  angels  and  men,  predestinated  and  fore- 
ordained are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed — that  the 
righteous  are  chosen  in  Christ  into  everlasting  glory,  out  of  God's 
mere  free  grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works,  or  perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in 
the  creature,  as  conditions,  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto ; 
and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace" — and  that  it  hath 
pleased  God,  "  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his 
creatures,  to  pass  by  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  ordain  them  to 
dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sins  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 
justice"* — Not  so  with  Methodists,  who  substitute  internal  per- 
suasions, which  they  call  the  assurance  of  faith,  or  the  witness 
of  God's  spirit,  for  that  holiness  of  life,  that  inward  purity  and 
moral  rectitude,  which  are  the  proper  evidence  of  conversion — 
of  renovation — of  an  acceptable  state  with  God.  Not  so  with 
Papists,  who  demand  unqualified  submission  to  the  decrees  of 

•  Confession  of  Faith;  article  or  ch.  iii.  of  God's  eternal  decrees — Phila.  Ed.  1821. 


13 

the  council  of  Trent  in  the  16th  century,  as  an  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation.  Thus  the  theological  opinions  of  men 
are  attempted  to  be  bound  on  the  consciences  of  mankind  as 
dogmas  of  faith,  and  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us 
free,  virtually  destroyed. 

Contrary  to  all  these  and  many  others  too  numerous  to  be 
named,  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  teaches  as  articles 
of  faith  those  things  only  which  are  plainly  delivered  in  the 
written  word  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  about  the  truth 
of  which  there  never  was  any  doubt  among  the  faithful.  And 
now  let  me  ask,  is  not  this  reasonable  1  is  not  this  safe  ?  is  it  not 
consistent  with  the  charity  of  the  gospel  ?  If  my  fellow  man 
professes  his  conviction  of  the  truth  of  what  the  apostles  taught, 
why  must  I  impose  on  him  new  and  additional  terms  of  com- 
munion or  fellowship  which  they  never  required?  Why  must 
my  interpretation  of  scripture  be  taken  as  correct  and  his  con- 
demned ?  or  why  his  received,  and  mine  rejected  ?  Who  is  to 
decide  between  us,  if  we  chance  to  disagree  ?  a  thing  very  likely 
to  happen.  We  both  appeal  to  the  written  word,  who  is  to  be 
umpire  between  us?  There  is  no  decision  to  be  had  in  such  a 
case,  without  an  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  church ;  without 
reverting  to  primitive  Christianity,  and  that  whjch  has  received 
the  sanction  of  all,  every  where  and  from  the  beginning  to  the 
council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325 — (down  to  which  period  it  is  acknow- 
ledged on  all  hands,  the  faith  was  kept  pure  and  unadulterated 
by  the  great  body  of  believers  in  every  part  of  the  world — )  and 
which  must  be  regarded  as  of  apostolical  authority.  Further 
than  this  we  need  not  go,  to  be  assured  of  our  fellowship  with 
the  apostles,  and  through  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  which 
they  established,  of  our  union  to  Christ,  the  living  head. 

I  have  thought  it  the  more  necessary  to  dwell  ^.j^^  attitude 
on  this  part  of  the  subject,  because  of  the  misap-     of  the  Church 

1  •  1  •    J  •  i  i  •  towards  others. 

prehension  and  prejudice,  not  to  say,  misrepresen- 
tation, which  I  know  to  abound  in  the  community,  respecting 
the  church,  and  the  position  which  she  occupies  towards  the 
various  religious  professions  around  us.  The  church  utters  no 
denudations  against  others,  who  through  faith  and  repentance, 
are  striving,  however  misguidedly  in  some  things,  after  the  crown 
of  life.  She  takes  her  stand  on  general  principles,  which  may 
be  known  and  read  of  all  men  and  in  the  setting  forth  of  these, 


14 

the  plainness  and  simplicity  of  her  language  are  equalled  only 
by  its  modesty — by  the  carefulness  with  which  she  has  guarded 
her  formularies  from  the  expression  of  a  har^h  and  uncharitable 
judgment  on  the  faith  and  practice  of  others. 

Are  we  asked  what  is  the  church?  The  xix  article  re- 
phes :  "  The  visible  Church  of  Christ,  is  a  congregation  of 
faithful  men,  in  the  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached, 
and  the  sacraments  be  duly  ministered  according  to  Christ's 
ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite 
to  the  same. 

Is  the  demand  made,  who  are  authorized  to  minister  the 
word  and  sacraments  of  Christ's  religion?  The  preface  to 
the  ordinal  furnishes  the  answer — thus:  "It  is  evident  unto 
all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors, 
that  from  the  Apostles'  time,  there  have  been  these  orders  of 
ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons : 
whicli  offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend  estimation, 
that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he 
were  first  called,  tried  and  examined,  and  known  to  have  sucli 
qualities  as  are  requisite  for  the  same ;  and  also  by  public 
prayer,  with  imposition  of  hands,  was  approved  and  admitted 
thereunto  by  lawful  authority.  And  therefore  to  the  intent 
that  these  orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used  and 
esteemed  in  this  Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken 
to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  this  Church,  or 
suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be 
called,  tried,  examined  and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to 
the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  Episcopal  consecra- 
tion or  ordination."  It  will  be  perceived  from  the  foregoing 
that  the  Church  undertakes  to  declare  who  shall  be  accounted 
lawful  ministers  in  her  own  communion.  She  raises  not  the 
question,  nor  does  she  say  one  word  about  the  authority  of 
those  who  execute  the  functions  of  religion  among  others. 
She  judges  them  not ;  to  their  own  master  they  stand  or  fall 
and  to  him  they  must  give  account.  If  others  think  their 
authority  called  in  question  by  the  declaration  which  she  sets 
forth  that  "  it  is  evident  to  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy 
Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time 
there  have  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church, 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,"  she  is  not  to  blame  for  it.     It 


15 

is  their  own  fault  that  they  have  not  sought  for  that  authority 
from  the  source  and  in  the  way  which  she  declares  to  be  lawful. 
It  is  her  business  to  see  that  the  application  of  the  general 
principle  which  she  asserts,  be  made  to  those  who  seek  to  min- 
ister in  her  congregations.  And  this  is  all  that  she  undertakes 
to  do,  leaving  others  to  pursue  the  course  which  they  believe  to 
be  warranted  by  the  word  of  God  and  the  practice  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.     It  is  however  not  a  little  re- 

■  The     fifGnGroJ. 

markable  that  the  correctness  of  the  general  prin-    principle  of  the 
ciple  stated  by  the  church,  is  admitted   by  the     Church  admit- 
large   majority  oi  those  who  have  left  her  pale     piainants. 
and  set  up  separate  communions  for  themselves. 

Thus  Calvin,  the  founder  of  Presbyterianism  says,  "If  they 
will  give  us  such  an  hierarchy,  in  which  the  Bishops  have  such 
a  pre-eminence  as  that  they  do  not  refuse  to  be  subject  unto 
Christ,  I  will  confess  that  ihei/  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas^ 
if  any  such  there  be,  who  will  not  reverence  it,  and  submit 
themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience.''''  * 

Thus  Martin  Luther :  "  I  allow  that  each  state  ought  to 
have  one  Bishop  of  its  own  by  divine  right ;  which  I  show 
from  Paul,  saying  '  for  this  cause  left  I   thee  in  Crete.'  "  t 

Thus  Melancthon :  "  I  would  to  God  it  lay  in  me  to  restore 
the  government  of  Bishops.  For  I  see  what  manner  of  church 
we  shall  have,  the  ecclesiastical  polity  being  dissolved.  I  do 
see  that  hereafter  will  grow  up  in  the  church  a  greater  tyranny 
than  there  ever  was  before."  I 

Thus  Beza,  the  successor  of  Calvin :  "  In  my  writings  touch- 
ing church  government,  I  ever  impugned  the  Romish  hierarchy 
but  never  intended  to  touch  or  impugn  the  ecclesiastical  polity 
of  the  Church  of  England."  § 

The  plea  urged  for  establishing  a  government 

r   r%       T     ^  ^  ,1  II  Plea  of  neces- 

ol  Presbyters  contrary  to  what  was  the  known    gity. 
order  of  the  church  was  necessity.     The  refor- 
mation on  the  continent  was   carried,  forward  by  the  lower 
orders  of  the  clergy ;    that  is  by  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons, 
in  conjunction  with  the  people.     The  Bishops  refused  to  unite 
with  them  except  in  a  very   few   instances.     In    England  on 

*  Word  for  the  church  p.  .'';],  Joannes  Calvini  Trac.  Theo.  omnes  p.  69. 

t  Ibid.  Resolutions.  :t  Ibid.  Apology,  &c.  p.  395. 

§  Ibid.  p.  .'J2,  Letter  to  Archp.  Whitgift 


16 

the  contrary,  the  ministry,  including  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons, reformed  with  the  people;  and  hence  there  existed  no 
necessity  and  no  reason  to  change  the  order  of  government  by 
Bishops,  and  consequently  no  alteration  was  then,  or  for  a  long 
time  after,  attempted. 

But  what  does  this  plea  of  necessity  unavoidably  suppose? 
Unquestionably,  a  departure  from  some  established  rule  and 
order,  otherwise  there  could  be  no  reason  or  sense  at  all,  in 
such  plea.  It  must  be  evident  then  beyond*  cavil,  that  when 
the  necessity  ceases,  the  practice  which  the  plea  of  necessity 
is  introduced  to  justify,  ought  to  cease  also.  And  it  is  on  this 
ground  precisely  that  we  urge  all  those  who  practise  Presby- 
terian ordination,*  to  cease  an  irregularity,  (to  use  the  softest 
term,)  which  the  state  of  the  Christian  world  no  longer  ren- 
ders necessary,  if  it  ever  did,  and  return  to  the  application  of 
the  rule  which,  beyond  all  doubt,  prevailed  in  the  primitive  and 
apostolic  church. 

Th  Ch  h  ^^^*  *^  justify  this  separation  and  uphold  the 
independent  of  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  government,  it  is 
sometimes  asserted  that  the  orders  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  are  defective  .or  vitiated  because  derived  through 
a  corrupt  channel — that  is,  the  Romish  Church.  If  this  objec- 
tion avails  any  thing,  it  is  as  destructive  of  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  orders,  as  it  is  of  Episcopal  ordination.  For  from 
whom  did  the  Presbyters  that  founded  the  Presbyterian  form 
of  church  government  in  the  16th  century,  derive  their  autho- 
rity? Undoubtedly  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  whatever 
authority  they  claimed  and  exercised,  without  question  flowed 
through  that  channel.  And  can  it  be  that  this  same  fountain 
sent  forth  waters  both  sweet  and  bitter  at  the  same  time— that 
more  mysterious  than  Elisha's  salt  at  Jericho,  Presbyterian 
orders  came  forth  from  it  pure  and  unadulterated,  while  Epis- 
copacy was  tainted  and  corrupted?  You  perceive  then  that 
the  objection,  if  of  any  weight,  is  fatal  to  those  who  make  it. 
But  it  is  alledged  that  the  Episcopacy  of  the  English  Church, 
and  of  course  that  of  the  American  branch,  comes  through  the 
Roman  pontiffs  or  popes — and  the  Pope  being  the  man  of  sin, 

*  The  Methodists  of  course  included,  for  they  have  nothing  but  presbyterial 
ordination  to  plead,  if  they  can  make  good  their  claim  even  to  that.  Neither 
Wesley  nor  Coke  was  a  Bishop. 


17 

he  can  of  course  transmit  no  power  or  authority  in  the  Church 
of  Christ.  We  see  not  that  this  shifting  of  ground,  helps  along 
with  the  difficulty.  For  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  how,  if  the 
connexion  which  Bishops  maintained  with  the  Roman  Pope 
vitiated  or  abrogated  their  authority,  the  power  of  Presbyters 
was  not  annulled,  beca,use  of  the  same  connexion. 

That  the  popes  of  Rome,  aided  by  the  secular  power,  did 
usurp  and  exercise  an  ecclesiastical  domination  in  Great  Bri- 
tain, we  are  not  so  ignorant  of  history  as  to  deny.  That  that 
domination  vitiated  or  destroyed  the  orders  of  the  English 
Church  we  do  most  emphatically  deny ;  and  to  sustain  that 
denial  we  appeal  both  to  facts  and  argument.  Much  of  the  mis- 
apprehension and  consequent  misrepresentation  which  abound 
upon  this  subject,  are  referable  to  the  ignorance  which  pre- 
vails respecting  the  original  establishment  of  Christianity  in 
tlie  British  Islands,  and  the  subsequent  introduction  of  Roman- 
ism. We  deem  the  subject  of  importance  and  interest  enough, 
to  merit  particular  attention;  and  although  our  observations 
must  at  present  be  restricted  to  the  hmits  usually  appropriated 
to  a  single  discourse,  yet  will  they  be,  we  trust,  amply  sufficient 
to  lead  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  question  before  us. 

It  is  matter  of  history,  well  authenticated,  that 
Augustin  the  monk  came  to  Britain  from  Greg-  Augustin  not 
ory  of  Rome,  on.  a  mission  to  the  Anglo  Saxons  [|jg  Bnlish  c?. 
in  the  year  590.  It  is  equally  well  known  that 
some  time  after  his  arrival  he  met  in  conference  seven  Bishops 
already  established  in  their  sees  in  Britain  and  exercising  Epis- 
copal authority  over  the  churches  under  their  care.  The  ques- 
tion at  once  arises,  by  whom  was  Christianity  planted  in  Bri- 
tain, and  whence  did  these  Bishops  derive  consecration  ?  The 
answer  to  these  questions  will  show  what  connexion  the  an- 
cient British  Church  had  with  the  Roman  see. 

And  first  we  have  witnesses  as  to  the  fact  that  Christianity 
existed  in  Britain  long  before  the  arrival  of  Augustin. 

*  Tertullian  (A.  D.  193—220,)  says,  "  some  countries  of  the 

•  Adversus  Judoeos  c.  7.  "  Hispaniarum  omnes  termini,  et  Galliarum  diversae 
nationes,  et  Britannorum  inaccessa  Romanis  loca,  Christo  vero  subdita" 

Oral.  Tom  J.  p.  575.  "Kai  yop  ai  Bptravjxat  vn<yoi  at  Tiji  B-aXaTTris  ckto;  Kttjxevai,  Kai 
r.v  avT'A)  ovaai  rco  SZfeai/o)    Ttji  Suvancios  rov  puitaroi  fjjScuro."  &C. 


18 

Britons  which  proved  inaccessible  to  the  Romans  are  subject 
to  Christ." 

Origan  (A.  D.  230)  says,  "  When  did  Britain  before  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  unite  in  the  worship  of  one  God." 

Chrysoslom  (A.  D.  400)  "  The  British  Islands,  situated  be- 
yond our  sea,  and  lying  in  the  very  ocean  have  felt  the  power 
of  the  word,  for  even  there  churches  are  built  and  altars 
erected." 

You  Avill  remember  that  Augustin  came  to  England  A.  D. 
590,  These  testimonies  show  conclusively  that  Christianity 
was  preached  and  churches  erected  there  long  before  he  was 
born. 

2.  We  have  a  witness  as  to  the  time,  when  Christianity  was 
introduced  into  Britain,  Gildas  a  Britain  by  birth  A.  D.  546, 
says  it  was  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  61 — viz :  in  and  about  the 
date  of  St.  Paul's  travels  to  the  west.  Gildas  after  mentioning 
the  defeat  of  Boadicea.  A.  D.  61,  adds,  "  m  tJie  meanwhile 
the  S7m  of  the  Gospel  first  enlightened  this  island." 

3.  We  have  a  witness  as  to  the  persons  by  whom  the  gos- 
pel was  there  preached.  Eusebius  (A.  D.  270 — 340)  speaking 
of  the  travels  of  the  Apostles  to  propagate  the  faith,  says  some 
of  them,  "passed  over  the  ocean  to  the  British  isles"—"  snt,  rag 

Xttlovfisvag  BqsTavtxag  vrjcovgj^ — Dem  :    Ev.  Li.  3,  C.  7, 

4.  We  have  witnesses  as  to  the  specific  man,  Clemens 
Romanus  (A.  D.  70)  the  intimate  friend  and  fellow  laborer  of 
St.  Paul,  says  of  him,  that  in  preaching  the  gospel  he  went  to 
the  utmost  hounds  of  the  West,  "  ent,  to  Tegftu  rr/g  ^ujew^,"  an 
expression  denoting  Spain,  Gaul  and  Britain,  but  more  par- 
ticularly the  last  named  region. 

Jerome  (A.  D.  329 — 420)  speaking  of  St.  Paul's  imprisonment 
and  subsequent  journey  into  Spain,  says,  he  went  from  ocean 
to  ocean  and  preached  the  gospel  in  the  Wester7i  parts.  That 
in  the  Western  parts  he  included  Britain  is  evident  from  his 
letter  to  Marcnlla.  Theodoret  (A.  D.  423—460)  mentions  the 
Britons  among  the  nations  converted  by  the  apostles,  and  says 
that  St.  Paul,  after  his  release  from  imprisonment  went  to 
Spain,  and  from  thence  carried  the  light  of  the  gospel  to  other 
nations  and  brought  salvation  to  the  Islands  that  lie  in  the 
ocedfi..     All  writers  whom  I  have  consulted  understand  by  this 


19 

expression,  as  used  by  the  Fathers,  the  British  Isles.*  Theo- 
doret  calls  the  British  christians  "disciples  of  the  Tentmaker" 
(St.  Paul.)  These  authorities  are  decisive  as  to  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity  in  Britain  before  the  coming  of  Augustin 
in  A.  D.  590.  The  conclusion  is  irresistible  from  the  testimony 
that  the  church  was  there  planted  by  the  Apostles,  and  most 
probably  by  St.  Paul.  "  The  Bishop  whom  St.  Paul  is  recorded 
to  have  appointed,  was  Aristobulus,  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  By  the  appointment  of  Bishops, 
Priests  and  Deacons,  the  form  of  church  government  was 
complete^  and  the  British  church,  therefore,  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
was  fully  established.  And  what  results  from  this  establish- 
ment of  the  British  church  by  St.  Paul?  This  very  interest- 
ing consequence,  that  the  church  of  Britain  was  British  Ch'ch 
fully  established  before  the  church  of  Rome.  For  older  than  that 
Linus,  the  first  Bishop  of  Bome,  was  appointed  °  °™^' 
by  the  joint  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  in  the  year 
of  their  martyrdom,  and  therefore  after  St.  Paul's  return  from 
Britain."  t 

"The  British  church"  continues  the  same  writer,  was  never 
theirs  (the  Romanists)  but  by  usurpation.  For  though  our 
Saxon  ancestors  were  converted  to  Christianity  by  Popish 
missionaries,  yet  at  that  very  period,  the  British  church  main- 
taining herself  in  the  unconquered  parts  of  the  island,  had  sub- 
sisted from  the  days  of  her  first  founder,  St.  Paul,  and  distin- 
guished herself  not  only  by  her  opposition  to  the  The  old  Brit- 
heresy   of   Pelagius,    but    to    the   corruptions  of    1^^  Ch'ch  pure 

1-.  ,  r-.i         1      1  1  •  ^"    order,    doc- 

Popery."  X     She    had   every   thmg   necessary   or    trine  and  disci- 
essential  to  the  being  and  perfection  of  a  church    P^^"*^- 
— doctrine,  discipline   and  worship— dioceses,   bishops,  clergy, 

*  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  foregoing  quotations  are  very  brief,  and  in  some 
instances  the  substance  of  the  witness'  testimony  given  without  his  precise  words 
— which  would  have,  if  so  furnished,  to  be  arrayed  in  the  dress  of  the  ancient  Greek 
or  Latin.  For  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  desire  to  settle  the  question  of  St  Paul's 
preaching  the  gospel  in  Great  Britain,  I  would  refer  for  full  information  to  the 
Letters  of  Bishop  Burgess  of  St.  David's  to  his  clergy,  published  in  the  2d  vol.  of 
"  the  Churchman  Armed  against  the  errors  of  the  Time."  The  point  is  there  set- 
tled, it  seems  to  me,  beyond  controversy. 

t   Bishop  Burgess. 

t  The  following  passage  from  a  letter  of  Bishop  Davies  to  Archbishop  Parker, 
'contains  a  very  interesting  record  of  the  sentiments  of  the  British  church.  "  One 
notable  story  was  in  the  chronicle ;  howe,  after  the  Saxons  conquered,  contynew- 


20 

sacraments,  rites,  customs,  chm-ch  edifices  and  schools  for  the 
instruction  of  her  children.  Nor  let  it  be  supposed  that  there 
existed,  in  what  may  be  called  a  rude  and  barbarous  age,  the 
mere  "  form  of  godliness "  in  these  arrangements,  without  the 
manifestation  of  its  power  in  the  principles  and  practice  of  the 
members  of  the  British  Church.  The  following  extract  from 
a  treatise  still  extant,  of  Fastidius,  bishop  of  London,  more 
than  a  hundred  years  before  the  arrival  of  Augustin,  will  show 
that  the  clergy  of  Britain  not  only  understood  the  genuine  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel,  but  that  they  also  knew  how  to  inculcate 
them,  in  practice. 

"  It  is  the  will  of  God,  that  his  people  should  be  holy,  and 
apart  from  all  stain  of  unrighteousness :  so  righteous,  so  mer- 
ciful, so  pure,  so  unspotted  by  the  world,  so  single-hearted,  that 
the  heathen  should  find  no  fault  in  them,  but  say  with  wonder, 
blessed  is  the  nation  whose  God  is  the  Lord,  and  the  people 
whom  he  hath  chosen  for  his  inheritance.  We  read  in  the 
Evangelist  that  one  came  to  our  Saviour,  and  asked  him  what 
he  should  do  to  gain  eternal  life.  The  answer  he  received 
was,  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments. 
Our  Lord  did  not  say,  keep  faith  only.  For  if  faith  is  all  that 
is  required,  it  is  overmuch  to  say  that  the  commandments  must 
be  kept.  But  far  be  it  from  me  that  I  should  suppose  my  Lord 
to  have  taught  any  thing  overmuch.  Let  this  be  said  only  by 
those  whose  sins  have  numbered  them  with  the  children  of 
perdition. 

"  Let  no  man  then  deceive  or  mislead  his  brother :  except  a 
man  is  righteous,  he  hath  not  life ;  except  he  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  Christ,  he  hath  no  part  with  him.  A  christian 
is  one  who  shows  mercy  to  all ;  who  is  provoked  by  no  wrong ; 
who  suffers  not  the  poor  in  this  world  to  be  oppressed ;  who 
relieves  the  wretched,  succours  the  needy;  who  mourns  with 
mourners,  and  feels  the  pain  of  another  as  his  own ;  who  is 

nil  marro  rernaynpcl  bytwixt  the  Rvittayiis  (then  inhabilauntes  of  the  realme)  and 
the  Saxons,  the  Jirittayns  bnynj^  christians,  and  the  Saxons  pa^an-  As  occasion 
served,  they  soinetyines  treated  of  peace,  and  then  mette  together,  and  communed 
fou;cther,  and  dyd  eate  and  drynk  together,  but  after  that  by  the  meanes  of  Austen 
the  Saxons  became  christians  in  such  sort,  as  Austen  had  taught  them,  the  Biittayns 
wold  not  after  that  nether  eate  nor  drynk  wyth  them,  nor  yet  salute  them,  bycause 
they  corrupted  wyth  superstititm,  ymagcs  and  ydolalric,  the  true  religion  of  Christ." 
tihurchman  Armed,  &.c.  p.  G.'iiJ. 


21 

moved  to  tears  by  the  sight  of  another's  tears ;  whose  house 
is  open  to  all ;  whose  table  are  spread  for  all  the  poor ;  whose 
good  deeds  all  men  know;  whose  wrongful  dealing  no  man 
feels ;  who  serves  God  day  and  night  and  ever  meditates  upon 
his  precepts ;  who  is  made  poor  to  the  world,  that  he  may  be 
rich  towards  God;  who  is  content  to  be  inglorious  among  men, 
that  he  may  appear  glorious  before  God  and  his  angels ;  who 
has  no  deceit  in  his  heart ;  whose  soul  is  simple  and  unde- 
filed  and  his  conscience  faithful  and  pure ;  whose  whole  mind 
rests  on  God ;  whose  whole  hope  is  fixed  on  Christ,  desiring 
heavenly  things  rather  than  earthly,  and  leaving  human  things 
to  lay  hold  on  things  divine."* 

If  the  foregoing  be  a  fair  specimen  of  the  teaching  of  the 
ancient  British  church,  we  may  well  conclude  that  the  foun- 
dation of  their  ecclesiastical  establishment  was  laid  by  a  wise 
master  builder — that  "  in  doctrine  they  were  incorrupt  and 
held  the  mystery  of  faith  in  a  pure  conscience."  It  was  while 
the  christians  of  Britain  were  "  living  in  all  godly  quietness," 
and  animated  doubtless  by  the  constraining  love  of  Christ, 
were  pushing  their  missions  into  the  northern  parts  of  the 
island  for  the  conversion  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  and  into  Ire- 
land, that  that  terrible  invasion  of  the  Saxons  took  place,  which 
resulted  in  the  conquests  of  the  country,  and  well  nigh  the  ruin 
of  the  British  Church.  The  Britons  abandoned  by  the  Romans, 
presented  but  a  feeble  resistance  to  the  veteran  and  disciplined 
battalions  of  the  Saxons  led  on  by  daring  spirits  and  animated 
by  the  hope  of  plunder.  All  the  Eastern,  Southern  and  mid- 
land districts  were  in  a  short  time  over-run  and  in  possession 
of  the  invaders,  and  the  unhappy  Britons  driven  from  their 
homes  were  forced  to  seek  refuge  in  France  or  in  the  moim- 
tainous  and  inaccessible  parts  of  Wales  and  Cornwall.  Here 
history  represents  them  as  sternly  maintaining  for  a  long  time 
their  independence,  and  what  is  equally  honourable  to  their 
character,  as  faithfully  adhering  to  the  principles  and  practice 
of  the  faith  which  they  had  received  from  the  founders  of  their 
church.  It  was  in  this  condition  about  the  year  590,  that 
Augustin  found  them.  He  had  come  on  a  mission  from  Gre- 
gory, Bishop  of  Rome,  to  attempt  the  conversion  of  the  Saxons, 

*  Churton's  Early  English  Church  p.  29,  30. 


22 

and  well  indeed  had  it  been  if  he  had  confined  his  views  and 
efforts  to  this  single  object,  instead  of  attempting  as  he  did 
subsequently,  to  establish  a  spiritual  supremacy  alike  un- 
known and  repugnant  to  the  practice  and  feelings  of  the  Bri- 
tish christians.  Augustin  and  his  company  came 
cepdoirby^the  ^^'^^  ^o  the  court  of  king  Etlielbert  at  Canterbury, 
old  British  whose  queen.  Bertha,  was  a  christian,  who  had 
brought  with  her  from  France  a  Bishop  by  name 
Liudhard  or  Lithardus,  as  her  instructor  in  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel.  He  had  for  many  years  previous  to  the  arrival  of 
Augustin,  preached  and  administered  the  rites  of  our  holy  reli- 
gion in  the  church  of  St.'  Martin's  near  to  Canterbury,  a  vene- 
rable pile  which  yet  survives,  sacred  alike  for  its  antiquity 
and  for  its  associations  with  the  early  establishment  of  Chris- 
tianity in  Britain.  To  the  piety  and  hospitality  of  Liudhard, 
Augustin  was  indebted  for  his  first  night's  entertainment  at 
Canterbury.  Within  a  little  more  than  a  year  after  this  time, 
Augustin  received  consecration  at  the  hands  of  Vigil,  Arch- 
bishop of  Aries,  and  Elherius,  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France,  and 
returning  to  Canterbury,  was  invested  with  the  pall*  from 
Gregory  of  Rome,  as  an  Archbishop.  Here  was  the  beginning 
of  that  assumption  of  authority  which  the  successors  of  Gre- 
gory, the  Popes  of  Rome,  have  since  claimed  to  exercise  over 
the  British  church.  It  has  never  been  pretended  even,  that 
Augustin  received  his  spiritual  authority  as  a  Bishop,  by  con- 
secration at  the  hands  of  Gregory.  All  history  testifies  that  he 
was  consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Aries,  a  see  at  that  time 
independent  of  Rome,  and  consequently  the  line  of  succession 
among  the  English  bishops  if  traced  through  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  conducts  not  to  Rome,  but  to  Aries,  and  thence 
to  Lyons — thence  to  Smyrna,  where  Polycarp  presided  as 
Bishop  and  from  him  to  St.  John  at  Ephesus.t 

*  The  pall  (pallium)  was  sent  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome  to  the  Metropolitans  and 
other  chief  Bishops  of  the  West,  at  or  after  their  consecration,  in  token  of  their 
recognition  of  them,  as  lawfully  invested  with  their  office.  Though  it  was  for 
several  ages  only  a  sign  of  fraternal  regard,  and  a  pledge  of  intercommunion;  it 
came  at  length,  (when  the  honorary  Primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  gradually 
been  changed  into  a  Supremacy  of  power,)  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  prelimi- 
nary to  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  by  a  newly  consecrated  Bishop. 

t  The  Churches  in  Asia,  (of  which  Ephesus  and  Smyrna,  the  sees  of  St.  John 
and  St.  Polycarp,  were  the  chief,)  sent  a  mission  to  Gaul,  about  the  middle  of  the 


23 

Even  the  public  forms  of  religion,  as  then  in- 
Book  older  troduced  and  established,  were  not  taken  from 
than  the  Ro-       i^ie  Mass-book,  as  the  Romanists  boast,  and  dis- 

'"ii"-  •  TIT  1  -1  ■ 

senters  ignorantly  believe,  but  m  the  portions  yet 
retained  in  the  book  of  Common  prayer,  were  older  than  the 
beginning  of  the  corrupt  doctrine  of  the  mass.  Gregory,  so 
far  from  requiring  Augustin  to  observe  the  service  used  at 
Rome,  expressly  charges  him  to  search  diligently  for  what 
might  be  more  edifying  in  other  churches,  referring  him  espe- 
cially to  the  old  church  of  Gaul  which  was  closely  united 
in  faith  and  practice  with  the  old  British  or  Welsh  church. 
"We  are  not  to  love  cnstoms,"  said  he,  "on  account  of  the 
places  from  which  they  come ;  but  let  us  love  all  places  where 
good  customs  are  observed,  choose  therefore  from  every  church 
whatever  is  pious,  religious  and  well-ordered ;  and  when  yon 
have  made  a  bundle  of  good  rules,  leave  them  for  your  best 
legacy  to  the  English."  Neither  did  Gregory  claim  to  exercise 
the  powers  which  have  been  so  arrogantly  and  without  right 
or  reason  contended  for  as  the  prerogative  of  his  successors. 
For  in  opposition  to  the  pretensions  of  the  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople, he  asserted  that,  "  whosoever  claims  the  universal 
Episcopate,  is  the  fore-runner  of  Anti-Christ."  Ah !  he  little 
imagined  that  he  was  then  uttering  a  sentiment,  which  in 
after  ages  would  apply  with  marvellous  directness  to  his  suc- 
cessors. For  the  popes  of  Rome  to  this  day  claim  the  uni- 
versal Episcopate,  and  so  fall  under  the  heavy  condemnation 
and  withering  rebuke  of  their  illustrious  predecessor. 

Augnstin  had  not  long  exercised  his  Episco-  The  Pope's 
pal  authority  in  England,  before  he  proposed  a^SSnow- 
and  through  Ethelbert  succeeded  in  bringing  ledged. 
the  British  Bishops  to  a  conference.  In  this  interview  the 
Archbishop  of  Cambria  (Wales,)  seven  bishops  and  a  con- 
siderable number  of  other  British  clergy  were  present.  Au- 
gustin proposed  to  them  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the 

second  century,  under  Photinus,  who  became  Bishop  of  Lyons,  and  was  succeeded 
by  St.  IrensEus.  This  mission  established,  if  it  did  not  found  the  Church  in  Gaul; 
and  perpetuated  in  that  country,  not  only  the  Apostolic  succession  in  the  time 
of  St.  John,  but  also  the  Asiatic  Liturgy  and  usages;  until  the  intimate  connexion 
between  Rome  and  Gaul,  which  was  cemented  by  the  Carlovingian  dynasty  in  the 
8th  and  9th  centuries,  enabled  the  Popes  to  substitute  gradually  the  Roman  Liturgy 
and  customs  for  the  Galilean. 


24 

Bishop  of  Rome  over  their  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church, — to 
conform  to  the  Romish  custom  of  keeping  Easter*— to  use  the 
Romish  forms  and  ceremonies  in  celebrating  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism and  to  join  the  Roman  missionaries  in  preaching  the 
gospel  to  the  Saxons.  To  these  denmnds  they  returned  a 
firm  and  decided  negative,  positively  refusing  to  acknowledge 
Augustin  as  their  Archbishop.  The  answer  of  Dunod  the 
abbot  of  Bangor,  clearly  vindicates  the  independence  of  the 
British  church,  and  shows  that  the  idea  of  Roman  supremacy 
was  not  tolerated  for  a  moment.  "We  are  bound,"  said  he, 
"to  serve  the  church  of  God,  and  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and 
every  godly  christian,  as  far  as  keeping  them  in  offices  of  love 
and  charity :  this  service  we  are  ready  to  pay ;  but  more  than 
this  I  do  not  know  to  be  due  to  him  or  any  other.  We  have 
a  primate  of  our  own,  who  is  to  oversee  us  under  God,  and  to 
keep  us  in  the  way  of  Spiritual  life."  This  answer  given  in 
the  genuine  spirit  of  catholic  independence,  fully  confirms  the 
truth  of  Sir  Wm.  Blackstone's  remark,  that,  "  the  ancient  Bri- 
tish church  by  whomsoever  founded  was  a  stranger  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  and  his  pretended  authority."  "  Britain  knew 
not  that  the  message  from  Rome  was  the  fore-runner  oi forcing 
away  that  independence,  of  which  the  bare  asking  would  not 
gain  the  surrender :  and  though  from  this  time  onward  to  the 
16th  century,  the  Holy  Catholic  church  of  Britain,  fought  inch 
by  inch,  for  that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  had  made  her  free, 
what  could  she  do?  The  student  of  these  times  knows  full 
well  the  feeble  condition  of  the  Britons  invaded  by  the  pagan 
Saxons."  The  slaughter  of  twelve  hundred  Ecclesiastics  at 
one  time  on  the  borders  of  Wales  by  Ethilfrid,  king  of  North- 
umberland, not  without  suspicion  that  Augustin  himself  was 
privy  to  the  relentless  massacre,  furnishes  melancholy  evidence 

•  "  The  British  Church  at  this  time  kept  their  Easter-day  on  a  Sunday,  from 
the  14th  to  the  20tli  day  of  the  paschal  moon  inclusive;  whereas  the  Roman  church 
kept  it  on  the  Sunday  which  fell  between  the  15th  and  21st.  The  rule  of  the 
Church  laid  down  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  32-'),  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  was  that  Easter  should  be  kept  on  the  first  Sunday  after  the  full  moon  next 
following  the  21st  day  of  March.  Some  old  Churches  of  the  East  had  kept  it  on 
the  14th  day  of  the  moon,  which  was  the  day  of  the  Jews'  Passover,  on  whatever 
day  of  the  week  it  fell.  The  Britons  seem  to  have  had  this  custom,  wiiich  they  sup- 
posed to  be  observed  in  the  churches  founded  by  St.  John  in  Asia;  but  after  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  wishing  to  correct  their  practice,  they  had  still  begun  one  day  too  soon." 
Churton's  "  Early  English  Church"  p.  44.  J\rew  York  edition. 


25 

of  the  hapless  condition  of  the  Britons.  "  The  British  church 
could  not  but  be  depressed  when  her  sons  suflfered.  What 
then  COULD  she  do  in  this  situation  when,  in  addition  to  the 
attacks  of  the  Saxon,  the  arm  of  the  Italian  church  was 
stretched  forth  not  to  assist,  but  (as  it  finally  turned  out)  to 
crush  and  enslave  her.  Does  any  one  say  the  British  church 
could  at  least  protest  1  Aye !  and  so  she  did,  most  man- 
fully and  boldly.  Her  voice  was  heard,  in  the  persons  of 
her    Bishops,    her    clergy*  and    her    laity,  protesting    against 

*  The  following  declaration  and  protest  of  the  clergy  of  Berkshire,  1240,  will 
prove  that  however  the  fire  of  christian  liberty  may  have  been  smothered  in  that 
dark  period  of  the  world's  history,  it  was  very  far  from  being  extinct.  "  The  rec- 
tors of  churches  in  Berkshire,  all  and  each,  say  thus  : 

First,  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  contribute  money  to  support  a  man  against  the  Em- 
peror; for  though  the  pope  has  excommunicated  him,  he  has  not  been  convicted 
or  condemned  as  a  heretic  by  any  sentence  of  the  church.  And  if  he  has  seized 
or  invaded  the  estates  of  the  church  of  Rome,  still  it  is  not  lawful  for  the  church 
to  resist  force  by  force. 

Secondly,  that  as  the  Roman  church  has  its  own  estates,  the  management  of 
which  belongs  to  the  lord  pope,  so  have  other  churches  theirs,  granted  them  by 
gift  and  allowance  of  pious  kings,  princes  and  noblemen;  which  in  no  respect  are 
liable  to  pay  tax  or  tribute  to  the  church  of  Rome. 

Thirdly,  although  the  law  says,  all  things  belong  to  the  prince,  this  does  not 
mean  that  they  are  part  of  his  property  and  domain,  but  are  under  his  care  and 
charge ;  and  in  like  manner  the  churches  belong  to  the  lord  pope  as  to  care  and 
charge,  not  as  to  dominion  and  property.  And  when  Christ  said,  "  Thou  art 
Peter,  a?id  on  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church"  he  committed  only  the  charge, 
and  not  the  property,  to  Peter,  as  is  plain  from  the  following  words,  "  Whatso- 
ever thou  shall  bind  and  loose  upon  earth,  shall  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven:" 
not  whatsoever  thou  shalt  exact  on  earth  shall  be  exacted  in  heaven. 

Fourthly,  inasmuch  as  it  is  plain  from  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  that  the 
income  of  churches  is  appointed  for  certain  uses,  as  for  the  church,  the  ministers 
and  the  poor,  it  ought  not  to  be  turned  to  other  uses  but  by  the  authority  of  the 
whole  church.  Least  of  all  ought  the  goods  of  the  church  to  be  taken  to  maintain 
■war  against  christians. 

Fifthly,  that  the  king  and  nobles  of  England,  by  inheritance  and  good  custom, 
have  the  right  of  patronage  over  the  churches  of  England ;  and  the  rectors,  holding 
livings  under  their  patronage,  cannot  admit  a  custom  hurtful  to  their  property 
without  their  leave. 

Sixthly,  that  churches  were  endowed,  that  rectors  might  afford  hospitality  to 
rich  and  poor  according  to  their  means;  and  if  the  intention  of  patrons  is  thus 
frustrated,  they  will  not  in  future  build  or  found  churches,  or  be  willing  to  give 
away  livings. 

Seventhly,  that  the  pope  promised,  when  he  first  asked  for  a  contribution, 
never  to  repeat  his  demand:  and  that  as  a  repeated  act  makes  a  custom,  this 
second  contribution  will  be  drawn  into  an  unusual  and  slavish  precedent."  Chur- 
ton  p.  319,  320. 

4 


26 

the  usurpation  of  Rome,  from  its  commencement  in  the  6th 
century  up  to  its  close  in  the  16th. 

The  British  church  produced  a  noble  array  of  divines  from 
Dinoth  (Dunod)  of  Bangor,  to  Cranmer  of  Canterbury  who 
from  time  to  time  did  all  they  could  to  resist  the  uncanonical 
and  anticatholic  usurpation  of  her  spiritual  rights ;  but  for  cen- 
turies it  was  all  in  vain.  They  could  only  stave  oflf  the  evil 
day  for  a  time,  and  at  length  about  the  end  of  the  Norman 
conquest,  the  catholic  church  of  Britain,  planted  by  apostolic 
hands,  was  completely  forced  beneath  the  feet  of  her  unatu- 
ral  and  ambitious  sister,  the  church  of  Rome.  With  her  reli- 
gion went  her  political  glory.  And  methinks,  the  hoi  blood  of 
virtuous  indignation  must  now  crimson  the  cheek  of  Eng- 
land's sons,  when  they  look  back  to  those  times  that  saw  their 
soil,  like  their  church,  under  the  thraldom  of  an  Italian  Bishop  ! 
When  their  monarch's,  the  2d  Henry  and  his  son  (out  upon 
such  drivelling  cowards !)  disgraced  their  own  and  their  coun- 
try's name,  the  first  by  baring  his  back  to  be  scourged  by  the 
meek  and  unassuming-  successor  of  the  fisherman ;  and  the 
last  by  humbly  laying  the  crown  of  England  at  the  footstool 
of  the  pope's  legate. 

There  was  not,  however,  this  pusillanimous  submission  on 
the  part  of  the  Spiritual  sons  of  England.*  They  never,  (no, 
not  from  the  days  of  St.  Paul  up  to  his  successors  the  English 
Bishops  of  this  day)  they  never  yet  yielded  up  the  mitre  of 
catholic  independence  into  the  hands  of  the  usurping  Romans. 
The  church  of  Britain  was  forced,  it  is  true,  to  bow  her  head 
for  a  time,  but  her  heart  was  as  unbending  as  the  gnarled  oaks 
of  her  own  native  forests. 

*  William  of  Corboil,  a  French  priest,  elevated  to  the  see  of  Canterbury,  contrary 
to  law  and  custom,  and  by  intrigue,  was  the  first  ecclesiastic  that  attempted  to  betray 
the  independence  of  the  English  church.  Up  to  this  time  (1125)  the  po])e  had  no 
jurisdiction  in  England — The  church  was  under  a  head  of  its  own,  governed  by  the 
king  in  temporal  matters,  and  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  spiritual.  Wil- 
liam of  Corboil  made  the  primacy  of  England  consist  in  acting  as  the  pope's  deputy. 
The  church  and  nation  were  far  from  quietly  yielding  to  his  measures.  The  writers 
of  the  time  never  speak  of  William  of  Corboil,  without  expressing  contempt  for 
his  meanness;  and  his  name  became  a  standing  jest  in  merry  old  England.  "  He 
ought  not  to  be  called  William  of  Corboil,"  says  John  Bromton,  abbot  of  Jorval, 
"  but  William  of  Turmoil."  "  Truly  1  would  speak  his  praises  if  I  could,"  says 
Henry,  archdeacon  of  Huntingdon,  "  but  they  are  beyond  expression  for  no  man 
has  yet  discovered  them."     Churton  p.  2G6,  268. 


27 

Dinoth  of  Bangor  is  witness — Bishop  Daganus  is  a  later 
witness,  for  he  would  not  eat  at  the  same  table,  no,  nor  in  the 
same  house  with  these  Roman  schismatics.*  The  king  and 
clergy  of  Northumberland  are  still  later  witnesses,  for  they 
treated  with  contempt,  the  papal  mandate  to  restore  his  deposed 
Bishop,  Wilfrid,  And  then  was  the  giant  arm  of  WicklifFe 
raised  in  later  days,  and  noble  was  the  blow  he  struck. 
And  when  he  died  in  1384,  he  bade  by  his  example  his  fol- 
lowers, the  old  catholics  of  Britain,  the  members  of  this  church 
of  the  living  God,  never  to  cease  till  their  protestations  termi- 
nated in  action,  and  they  had  ejected  that  schismatic  intruder 
who  had  placed  his  foot  on  their  shores  in  596,  They  never 
did  cease.t  Wickliffe's  followers,  known  in  history  under  the 
name  of  Lollards,  kept  up  the  protest  which  Dinoth  of  Bangor 
had  raised,  and  which  each  succeeding  age  found  bold  and 
faithful  spirits  to  prolong.  The  stake  was  prepared  for  them ; 
but  in  vain,  for  they  burnt  at  the  stake,  yet  were  true  to  the 
catholic  faith.  There  is  the  bloody  act  of  1399,  by  which  they 
were  burnt,  and  the  names  of  many  of  the  noble  sufferers  on 
whom  it  took  effect :  but  it  all  would  not  do.  The  flame  lighted 
up  Britain,  it  spread  to  Smithfield  and  added  brightness 'to  the 
death-light  of  Cranmer  and  his  brother  martyrs.  It  spread  till 
it  reached  the  continent,  and  Luther  abroad,  as  well  as  the 
catholics  in  Britain  (Cranmer,  Ridley  and  Latimer)  were  nerved 
by  the  spirit  of  Wickliffe. 

But  now  came  the  time  when  the  old,  and.  oppressed  church 
of  Britain  was  able,  as  she  had  all  along  been  willing,  to  eject 
the  intruding  and  hence  schismatic  church  of  Rome.  Four 
centuries  had  witnessed  her  struggles  in  vindication  of  reli- 
gious freedom,  and  now  in  the  good  providence  of  God  the  day 
came  when  the  prophetic  words  of  the  dying  Grostete,  were  to 
receive  their  fulfilment,  and  the  church  of  England  "  was  set 

*  "  Nam  Daganus  Episcopus  ad  nos  veniens  non  solum  cibum  nobiscum,  sed  nee 
in  eodem  hospitio,  quo  vescebamur,  sumere  voluit."     Bede  L.  ii.  c.  4. 

t  Grostete,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  Sewel,  archbishop  of  York,  may  be  instanced 
among  many  other  illustrious  examples,  of  resistance  to  the  claims  of  papal  domi- 
nation. The  former,  in  the  close  of  his  letter  to  the  Pope,  employs  the  following 
strong  and  emphatic  language :  "Since  the  commands  I  have  received  are  so  con- 
trary to  the  holiness  of  the  Apostolic  see,  destructive  to  the  .souls  of  men,  and  against 
the  catholic  faith, — the  very  spirit  of  unity,  the  love  of  a  son,  and  the  obedience 
of  a  subject,  command  me  to  rebel."    Churton  p.  329. 


28 

free  from  the  Egyptian  bondage"  under  which  she  groaned 
"  by  the  edge  of  a  blood-stained  sword." 

"The  Bishop  of  Italy,"  continues  the  eloquent  divine*  to 
whom  I  am  indebted  for  many  of  the  preceding  observations, 
"  the  Bishop  of  Italy,  called  the  Pope,  had  no  more  right  in 
Great  Britain  than  he  had  in  these  United  States  of  America ; 
and  he  has  about  as  much  right  to  spiritual  supremacy  in  either, 
as  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  or  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania 
has  in  Italy." 

"  When  therefore  the  Bishop  of  Italy  sent  his  messenger.  Au- 
gustin,  in  the  sixth  century,  to  ask  the  catholic  church  in  Bri- 
tain to  submit  to  him,  and  this  being  indignantly  refused,  he 
in  after  days  forced  that  submission  and  by  intrigue  and 
treachery  usurped  her  rights,  there  was  no  more  than  sheer 
justice  returned,  when  the  British  church  had  the  power,  as 
she  had  in  the  16th  century,  to  eject  the  intruder,  soul  and 
body,  and  send  the  writ  of  ejectment  by  the  hands  of  her  law- 
ful Bishops  Cranmer,  Ridley  and  Latimer.  And  this  she  did 
orderly,  legally,  canonically,  completely.  Ah !  the  British 
rliLU-ch,  never  forgot  the  year  596 — no,  not  when  her  temples 
were  over-run  with  foreign  priests,  her  altars  served  by  alien 
hands  and  her  property  devoured  by  alien  mouths.  She  never 
forgot  that  year,  though  ten  centuries  had  rolled  round,  during 
which  she  could  only  express  her  remembrance  by  strong  pro- 
testations and  ineffectual  efforts.  She  never  forgot  that  year; 
and  when  the  8th  Henry,  blotted  out  the  pusillanimity  of  the 
2d  by  proclaiming  through  the  legal  voice  of  the  realm,  the 
independence  of  our  motherland  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  me- 
thinks  the  shades  of  Dinoth,  with  the  other  clergy  who  met 
the  monk  Auguslin  in  the  6ih  century,  the  shades  of  Wickliffe 
and  his  martyred  followers  in  the  14th  century,  clustered 
around  Cranmer  and  his  Brothers  of  the  16th  century,  and 
watched  with  an  English  churchman's  interest,  the  royal  sig- 
nature which  cancelled  forever,  (God  grant  it  be  so  !)  the  foul- 
est blot  that  ever  stained  England's  cross,  political  or  religious- 
From  that  period  (the  Reformation  in  the  16th  century)  the 
church  of  the  living  God — the  church  of  St.  Paul — the  old 
British  church,  in  her  purity,  in  her  zeal,  faith  and  charity 

•  Rev.  VVm.  H.  Odenheimer,  Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Philadelphia. 


29      • 

has  been  the  boast  and  blessing  of  the  land  of  onr  fathers. 
May  the  fires  of  Smithfield  be  again  kindled  and  her  children, 
to  a  man,  bnrn  and  die  at  the  stake,  before  they  yield  np  the 
trust  of  catholic  independence  and  suffer  the  disgrace  of 
England's  church  to  be  told  in  her  submission  to  a  Bishop 
of  Italy." 

From  the  Church  of  England,  thus  rescued  from  the  domina- 
tion of  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Henry  8th,  and  again  deliv- 
ered after  a  temporary  depression,  under  "  the  bloody  Mary " 
— and  purified  and  established  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth — and 
once  more  restored  from  the  desolations  which  swept  like  a 
flood  over  her  under  the  iron  rule  of  Cromwell  the  Protector, 
from  this  Churchy  like  Israel  of  old,  with  Amalekites  smiting 
her  in  the  face  and  fiery  serpents  stinging  at  her  feet,  but  still 
holding  her  onward  way,  ever  looking  to  her  glorious  Head 
for  guidance  and  protection — from  this  church,  the  uncompro- 
mising asserter  of  Catholic  verity — the  acknowledged  bulwark 
of  protestant  principles — the  dispenser,  at  this  day,  through 
her  18,000  clergymen,  of  the  bread  of  life  to  the  men  of  every 
clime  and  every  complexion — from  this  church,  upon  the  labors 
of  whose  missionaries  the  sun  never  sets — whose  zeal  the  fire 
cannot  destroy  nor  the  floods  quench — from  this  church,  blessed, 
of  God  and  blessing  man,  is  derived  the  ministerial  authority 
by  which  you  have  been  brought  into  the  visible  fold  of  Christ, 
made  members  of  his  "one  body"  and  united  to  the  Ever- 
living  Head.  For  such  grace,  mercy  and  privilege,  God's 
holy  name  be  ever  blessed;  and  to  Him,  the  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  be  ascribed  all  honour,  praise  and  glory,  Avorld 
without  end !     Amen. 


SERMON    II. 

"  BUT  WE  DESIRE  TO  HEAR  OF  THEE  WHAT  THOU  THINK- 
EST  :  FOR  AS  CONCERNING  THIS  SECT,  WE  KNOW  THAT 
EVERY    WHERE    IT    IS    SPOKEN    AGAINST." 

Acts  xxviii.  22. 

Such,  Brethren,  was  the  reply  of  the  Jews  at  Rome,  to  the 
address  of  St.  Paul,  when  he  was  sent  a  prisoner  from  Jerusa- 
lem to  appear  before  Caesar.  To  save  his  life  he  had  appealed 
to  the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the  laws  of  the  empire,  and 
after  various  vicissitudes  by  land  and  by  sea,  at  length  found 
himself  within  he  walls  of  the  imperial  city.  That  his  cause 
might  not  be  prejudiced  by  the  clamors  of  his  own  country- 
men, whom  he  knew  by  past  experience  to  be  opposed  to  the 
religion  which  he  taught,  he  assembled  the  chief  of  the  Jews, 
a  few  days  after  his  arrival,  and  stated  to  them  the  cause 
of  his  coming:  namely,  that  being  deliveied  into  the  hands 
of  the  Romans,  though  guilty  of  no  crime,  and  about  to  be 
set  at  liberty  because  no  cause  of  death  was  found  in  him, 
the  Jews  nevertheless  spake  against  it ;  wherefore  he  was  con- 
strained to  appeal  unto  Cfesar.  "  Not  that  I  had  ought  to 
accuse  my  nation  of:"  said  he:  "For  this  cause  therefore 
have  I  palled  for  you  to  see  you,  and  to  speak  with  you :  be- 
cause that  for  the  hope  of  Israel  I  am  bound  with  this  chain. 
And  they  said  unto  him,  we  neither  received  letters  out  of 
Judea  concerning  thee,  neither  any  of  the  brethren  that  came 
showed  or  spake  any  harm  of  thee.  But  we  desire  to  hear 
of  thee  what  thou  thinkest ;  for  as  concerning  this  sect,  we 
know  that  every  where  it  is  spoken  against." 

By  this  sect,  is  undoubtedly  meant,  the  sect  of  the  Naza- 
renes  or  followers  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  the  christian  reli- 
gion as  taught  by  St.  Paul  and  the  other  Apostles,  which  every 
where  excited  the  opposition  and  the  enmity  of  the  Jews,  and 


32 

indeed,  generally,  of  all  the  nations  to  whom  it  was  first 
preached.  It  was  a  religion  of  mortification  and  self-denial, 
which  inculcated  internal  purity  and  moral  rectitude,  a  reli- 
gion that  called  for  the  exercise  of  constant  vigilance  over  the 
thoughts,  no  less  than  a  watchful  circumspection  of  the  con- 
duct, that  rendered  it  the  object  of  almost  universal  dislike  and. 
aversion.  Striking  at  the  roots  of  temporal  ambition,  it  con- 
tradicted the  fondly  cherished  notions  of  the  Jew  in  reference 
to  national  glory  and  exaltation, — hence  it  was  to  him  a  stum- 
bling block  and  a  stone  of  offence.  Pronouncing  of  the  Hea- 
then gods  that  they  were  dumb  idols — that  the  worship  offered 
to  them  was  not  only  vain  but  an  abomination  to  the  true  God, 
who  would  call  them  into  judgment  for  this  perversion  of  their 
reason,  it  seemed  to  the  Gentile  a  system  of  arrogance  and 
presumption,  and  he  rejected  it  as  foolishness.  Neither  Jew 
nor  Gentile  in  that  age  had  any  relish  for  the  humbling  doc- 
trines of  the  Cross.  Its  charity  was  opposed  to  their  pride,  its 
humility  seemed  to  them  meanness,  its  temperance,  ingrati- 
tude to  providence  in  not  partaking  of  its  bounties,  and  its 
glorious  promises  as  the  wild  dreams  of  fanaticism.  Its  sim- 
ple rites  and  worship  giving  expression  to  the  devout  feelings 
of  the  heart,  had  nothing  in  them  attractive  to  the  unrenewed 
mind  of  man,  when  set  in  contrast  with  the  imposing  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Jewish  ritual  or  the  magnificence  and  pomp  and 
splendor  of  Roman  worship.  It  can  be  no  cause  of  wonder 
then,  that  every  where  it  was  spoken  against.  Yet  it  was  the 
truth  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  the  power  of  God. 
Such  it  has  proved  itself  to  be,  by  eighteen  centuries  of  endu- 
rance against  the  natural  hatred  of  mankind,  by  dispelling  the 
darkness  of  ignorance  wherever  its  glorious  light  has  shined 
upon  our  earth,  and  by  subduing  the  understandings  of  millions 
to  the  dominion  of  truth  and  their  hearts  to  the  reign  of  happi- 
ness and  peace.  It  would  be  interesting,  Brethren,  to  trace 
this  religion  from  its  implantation  in  various  countries  by  the 
labors  of  the  apostles,  and  show  how  it  has  every  where 
encountered  opposition,  and  survived  not  only  the  overthrow 
of  kingdoms,  states  and  empires,  but  the  passing  away  of 
entire  races  and  whole  nations  of  men.  It  is  destined,  per- 
haps, to  encounter  yet  severer  trials  in  its  onward  progress  to 
universal   dominion,  but   sure   as   Heaven's  truth,  it  will  put 


33 

down  all  opposition,  and  at  last  reign  without  a  rival  in  our 
world. 

But  I  have  selected  this  text  not  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing the  grounds  of  opposition  to  Christianity  originally.  They 
present  to  our  minds  a  very  striking  analogy  in  the  position 
which  the  church  occupies  towards  the  world  at  the  present 
day,  and  the  character  of  the  opposition  which  is  arrayed 
against  her.  It  is  our  purpose  to  inquire  why  she  is  every 
Avhere  spoken  against,  and  whether  opposition  to  her  is  not 
wilful  or  blind  opposition  against  Christianity  itself 

1.  The  first  charge  brought  against  the  church,  .  First  objec- 
is  exclusiveness  of  ministerial  authority.  If  our  ofTh'e  ministry. 
claims  upon  the  subject  of  the  ministry  be  admit- 
ted, say  those,  who  have  separated  themselves  from  our  com- 
munion, then  they  are  in  schism.  But  as  there  are  confess- 
edly a  great  many  pious  people  who  are  not  Episcopalians,  it 
would  be  very  uncharitable  and  illiberal  to  say  that  they  were 
guilty  of  schism,  and  we  ought  therefore  to  admit  the  validity 
of  their  orders. 

Now  we  have  stated  the  objection  as  it  is  commonly  made, 
and  let  us  meet  it  fairly  and  take,  at  the  beginning,  all  the 
odium  which  usually  attaches  to  the  denial  of  its  force  •  and 
justice. 

We  ask,  do  piety  and  learning  and  gifts,  of  themselves,  im- 
part the  power  of  Orders?  It  is  not  so  pretended.  Why  will 
not  a  pious  man  receive  the  sacraments  of  a  pious  man  simply 
because  he  is  pious,  or  learned  or  possessed  of  aptness  to  teach  ? 
It  is  answered  because  he  has  not  been  ordained.  Ordination 
then,  it  is  clear,  confers  authority  which  is  altogether  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  from  qualifications  for  otfice.  Thus  we  say 
that  a  man  ought  to  be  pious  and  learned  and  apt  to  teach, 
in  order  to  receive  ordination,  and  that  he  may  exercise  his 
ministry  profitably  and  to  edification.  But  he  may  be  ever 
so  pious,  and  learned  and  apt  to  teach,  and  yet  be  no  minis- 
ter. Just  so.  a  lawyer  may  be  just,  and  upright  and  learned 
in  the  law,  and  yet  not  be  in  the  office  of  a  judge. — Qualifi- 
cation for  office  is  one  thing,  authority  to  fill  the  office  and  exer- 
cise its  functions  is  quite  another  and  difierent  thing. 

If  ordination  then  confers  a  power  and  authority  distinct 
altogether  from  the  qualifications  for  office,  is  it  unreasonable 

5 


34 

to  ask  and  to  demand  the  proof,  whence  that  power  and  autho- 
rity are  derived?  Would  you  permit  any  man  by  his  deci- 
sion to  divest  you  of  your  rights  and  property,  under  the  name 
of  law,  unless  you  were  satisfied  that  he  possessed  the  power 
and  authority  of  a  Judge?  And  why  then  should  you  allow 
any  one  to  minister  to  you  the  sacraments  of  religion,  unless 
convinced  that  he  was  invested  with  ministerial  authority? 
Now  here  is  the  precise  line  of  difference  between  us  and  sur- 
rounding denominations  whose  piety  and  learning  and  ability 
to  instruct,  we  do  not  deny.  We  ask,  whence  your  authority 
to  act  as  ministers  of  religion  ?  Can  you  show  that  it  is  deri- 
ved from  Christ  and  his  apostles  ?  If  this  can  be  shown,  there 
is  an  end  at  once  on  our  part,  of  all  objection  to  the  orders  of 
dissenters,  and  we  are  more  than  ready  to  receive  their  minis- 
trations. But  if  this  cannot  be  shown,  what  else  is  the  charge 
of  exclusiveness  brought  against  the  Church,  but  a  charge 
against  the  institution  of  Christ  ? 

Ordination         As  then  ordination  is  necessary  to  confer  min- 
iiecessary;   but     jsterial  authority,  and  it  is  so  acknowledged,  the 

how   n^ade   va-  •'  '  d      3 

lid?  question  at  once  arises,  how  is  the  power  of  ordi- 

nation to  be  proved  ?  We  answer  that  originally  the  authority 
to  act  in  the  name  of  Christ,  in  the  appointments  of  religion 
was  certified  to  the  world  by  miracles.  When  the  apostles 
and  other  first  teachers  of  Christianity  travelled  into  various 
countries  in  fulfilment  of  the  work  with  which  they  were 
charged,  they  spake  with  tongues — they  healed  the  sick— they 
cast  out  devils — they  raised  the  dead,  and  performed  other 
and  wonderful  works,  all  of  which  were  conclusive  evidence 
to  men  that  they  were  commissioned  from  on  high.  And  at 
this  day,  if  any  one  came  to  us  bearing  these  unquestionable 
credentials — these  impressive  marks  of  Heaven's  acknowledg- 
ment, there  is  not  one  of  us  that  would  demand  any  further 

proof  of  his  authority.  But  as  these  proofs  of  the 
ticated  ^^^  ^"'    niinisterial  power  are  no  longer  vouchsafed — as 

miracles  have  long  since  ceased,  how  shall  the 
authority  of  the  christian  ministry  be  certified  and  proven,  in 
any  other  way,  than  by  showing  its  transmission  from  the 
original  root?  Fruitful  as  the  mind  of  man  is  in  devising 
expedients  td  meet  a  dililcult  case,  no  other  than  this  method, 
(o  prove  a  succession  in  the  ministry,  has  ever  been  attempted 


35 

by  any,  except  by  those  who  deny  that  there  is  any  ministry 
at  all  established  for  the  perpetual  edification  and  government 
of  the  church.  But  there  is  a  plain,  common  sense  view  to 
be  taken  of  this  subject,  which  seems  to  me,  will  convince 
any  one  of  unprejudiced  mind,  not  only  that  a  ministry  was 
established  by  Christ,  but  that  it  must  of  necessity  have  been 
continued  all  along  to  the  present  day,  and  will  be  perpetuated 
to  the  end  of  the  world.  For,  first  of  all,  Christ  constituted  a 
ministry,  commissioning  the  apostles,  before  a  church  was 
gathered — before  the  New  Testament  or  any  part  of  it  was 
written,  and  before  any  christian  rite  or  sacrament  was 
administered.  His  words  to  the  Apostles  are:  "All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  Heaven  and  in  Earth ;  Go  ye  therefore 
and  teach,  (or  make  disciples,)  of  all  nations ;  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost — teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you,  and  lo !  1  am  with  you  alway  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world." 

This  declaration  that  he  would  be  with  them  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  conveys  an  assurance  as  definite  as  language  can 
well  express  it,  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  christian 

NGCGssjirv 

ministry.     But  without  dwelling  on  an  interpre-    connexion  of  sa- 

tation  which  appears  sufficiently  obvious,  we  re-    craments  and  a 
,1  ,  .     .  .    .  ,  ~  ministry. 

mark  that  the  commission  enjoins  the  periorm- 
ance  of  positive  and  explicit  duties,  namely :  to  baptize  and 
teach  all  things  whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them.  We 
know  most  assuredly  that  the  apostles  did  baptize  and  did 
administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Were  not  these  sacraments 
to  be  of  perpetual  obligation  ?  Can  any  doubt,  that  they  have 
been  observed  in  every  age  of  the  Christian  Church  to  the 
present  day?  Corrupted  as  they  may  have  been,  and  un- 
doubtedly were,— overloaded  and  obscured  in  their  obvious 
purpose  and  design  as  they  have  been,  by  the  superstitious 
addition's  of  man's  presuming  wisdom,  is  it  not  undeniably 
true,  that  they  have  been  celebrated  in  every  country  where 
the  religion  of  Christ  has  been  professed,  for  the  last  eighteen 
centuries?  Now  what  do  these  facts  undeniably  establish? 
Why,  that  the  institution  of  sacraments  pre-supposes  the  con- 
stitution of  a  ministry — and  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the 
former — that  is  sacraments — ^proves  the  uninterrupted   contin- 


36 

uance  of  the  latter.  Not  a  week  has  passed,  we  may  safely 
say,  since  the  crucifixion,  that  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper, 
has  not  been  celebrated  in  some  part  or  other  of  the  earth,  and 
consequently  not  a  day  has  passed  without  witnessing  the  exis- 
tence of  a  ministry  in  the  church.  The  connexion  between 
them,  is  inseparable,  and  the  fact  that  men  have  assumed  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  proves  that  the  conviction  rested  upon 
their  minds,  "  that  a  ministry  and  sacrament,  must  go  together 
— that  they  could  not  be  sundered  without  impugning  the  au- 
thority, and  impairing  the  institution  of  Christ.  Furthermore 
the  institution  of  «acraments  and  the  authority  to  administer 
them  resting  simply  upon  the  command  of  Christ,  both  neces- 
sarily become  integral  parts  of  the  same  revelation.  The  same 
divine  power  that  commissioned  a  ministry,  commanded  the 
observance  of  sacraments,  and  both  would  be  utterly  destitute 
of  obligation,  if  they  could  not  be  shown  to  rest  upon  the 
declared  will  of  him,  to  whom  all  power  is  given  in  Hpaveii 
and  Earth." 

Under  this  aspect  of  the  case — that  is,  the  ministry  and 
sacraments  being  equally  integral  parts  of  revelation — equally 
of  divine  institution — may  not  one  be  altered,  changed  or  abro- 
gated, with  as  much  show  of  reason  as  the  other?  Might  not 
the  pretended  necessity  which  would  justify  an  assumption  of 
the  ministerial  authority  and  office,  just  as  well  authorise  the 
entire  disuse,  or  abrogation  or  alteration  of  the  sacraments'? 
I  confess,  that  with  every  disposition  to  concede  to  men  distin- 
guished for  piety,  every  thing  upon  this  subject,  which  is  not 
utterly  repugnant  to  the  plain  declarations  of  Holy  Writ  and 
their  unavoidable  meaning,  I  can  see  no  difference  between  the 
claims  to  obedience  and  submission,  of  those  who  undertake 
to  change  or  dispense  with  the  ministry  and  those  who  pre- 
sume to  abrogate  the  sacraments.  They  must  stand  or  fall 
together.  Consistency  has  indeed  forced  very  many  who  have 
denied  one,  to  reject  the  other.  Thus  the  large  and  respect- 
able  body   of  Friends,   otherwise   known    as    Quakers,    have 

^,   ,    ,  ,.  ,      alike  repudiated  the  ministry  and  the  sacraments 

Neglect  of  the       /<     u      /-i  r    i        i  /■ 

inimstry  IlmcI-s  to  ot  thc  (jospol,  as  of  buidiug  force  and  obliga- 
negiect   of  tiic    ti(5fi   ^|po,j   [\^q   consciences   of  men.     And  as   a 

sacraments.  ^ 

general    rule,   we  may  observe,   that  those   who 
undervalue  the  authority  of  the  ministry  as  of  divine  institu- 


37 

tion,  make  but  little  account  of  the  sacraments  of  Christ's  reh- 
gion.  They  regard  them  as  badges  merely  of  profession — not 
necessary  in  any  sense  to  salvation,  and  are  consequently 
irregular,  inconstant  and  infrequent  in  their  observance.  If  it 
be  true  then,  that  Christ  instituted  a  ministry  and  sacraments 
in  his  church — if  it  be  clear  that  the  sacraments  are  of  per- 
petual obligation  and  cannot  be  dispensed  or  administered  with- 
out a  standing  ministry — if  the  authority  of  the  ministry  can- 
not now  be  certified  by  miracles,  it  follows  inevitably  that  this 
ministry  can  be  known  and  verified  only  as  proof  shall  be 
exhibited  that  the  authority  originally  delegated  by  Christ  to 
his  apostles  has  been  transmitted^in  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  to  those  who  at  this  day  claim  lic  successfon!°' 
to  exercise  office  in  the  Christian  Church.  This 
is  what  is  termed  the  apostolic  succession,  for  maintaining 
which,  the  charge  of  exclusiveness  is  brought  against  the 
church — this  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  she  "is  every  where 
spoken  against."  And  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  it  is 
nevertheless  demonstrably  true,  that  all  those  who  contend 
for  the  institution  of  a  ministry  authorized  to  act  in  Christ's 
name,  in  the  appointments  of  religion,  do  adopt  identically  the 
same  principle.*     Hear  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presby- 

*  Although  religion  be  a  concern  which  equally  belongs  to  every  man,  yet  it 
has  pleased  the  all-wise  Head  of  the  Church,  to  appoint  an  order  of  men  more 
particularly  to  minister  in  holy  things. 

If  all  the  interests  of  the  church  are  precious  in  the  view  of  every  enlightened 
Christian,  it  is  evident  that  the  mode  of  organization  cannot  be  a  trivial  concern. 

We  agree  with  our  Episcopal  brethren  in  believing,  that  Christ  hath  appointed 
Officers  in  his  church  to  preach  the  word,  to  administer  sacraments,  to  dispense 
discipline,  and  to  commit  these  powers  to  other  faithful  men.  We  believe  as  fully 
as  they,  that  there  are  different  classes  and  different  denominations  of  officers  in 
the  Church  of  Christ;  and  that,  among  these,  there  is,  and  ought  to  be  a  due 
subordination.  We  concur  with  them  in  maintaining,  that  none  are  regularly 
invested  with  the  ministerial  character,  or  can  with  propriety  be  recognized  in 
this  character,  but  those  who  have  been  set  apart  to  the  office  by  persons  lawfully 
clothed  with  the  power  of  ordaining.  We  unite  with  such  of  them  as  hold  the 
opinion,  that  Christians  in  all  ages,  are  bound  to  make  the  Apostolic  order  of 
the  Church,  with  respect  to  the  ministry,  as  well  as  other  points,  the  model,  as 
far  as  possible,  of  all  their  ecclesiastical  arrangements." — Dr.  Miller,  professor  in 
the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary,  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  Next  hear 
Dr.  McLeod,  another  Presbyterian  and  famous  preacher.  "  A  person  who  is  not 
ordained  to  office  by  a  Presbyterian  has  no  right  to  be  received  as  a  minister 
of  Christ;  his  administration  of  ordinances  is  invalid;  no  divine  blessing  is  pro- 
mised upon  his  labors:  it  is  rebellion  against  the  Head  of  the  Church  to  support 


5 


38 

terian  Church :  "  Unto  this  catholic  visible  church,  Christ  hath 
given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the 
gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end 
of  the  world :  and  doth  by  his  own  presence  and  spirit,  accord- 
ing to  his  promise,  make  them  effectual  thereunto."  The  same 
authority  sets  forth  that  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are 
"  holy  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,"  appointed  by 
Christ,  for  our  "  solemn  admission  into  the  Church,"  and  for 
"  confirming  and  sealing  our  interest  in  him ; "  and  they  are 
not  to  be  dispensed  by  any  but  by  a  minister  of  the  word  law- 
fully ordained."  Do  we  enquire  who  are  "  lawfully  ordained 
ministers,"  according  to  the  ^ame  standard?  We  are  informed 
that  "  the  Presbytery, — consisting  of  all  the  ministers,  and  one 
ruling  eJder  from  each  congregation,  within  a  certain  district — 
or  any  three  ministers  and  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present 
belonging  to  tlie  Presbytery, — have  power  to  examine  and 
Presbyterians  license  Candidates  for  the  holy  ministry;  to 
as  exclusive  as  ordain,  instal,  remove,  and  judge  ministers." 
piscop  lans.  ^j-j^t  then  becomes  of  the  charge  of  exclusive- 
ness  against  the  church — if  the  very  same,  upon  identically 
the  same  grounds,  may  be  urged  against  the  Presbyterians 
and  indeed  all  others  who  reject  Episcopacy,  but  yet  claim 
the  power  of  ordination  as  grounded  upon  the  commission 
of  Cln-ist  to  his  apostles? — Let  the  truth  be  told.  Brethren — 
honestly — openly — fairly.  They  flinch  from  the  consequences 
of  their  declared  and  published  sentiments.  Professing  a 
sound  principle  to  which  the  truth  of  God's  word  compels 
them  to  subscribe,  they  i/et  deny  its  application  in  practice, 
because  its  practical  exemplification  would  involve  themselves 
in  the  same  odious  imputation  of  exclusiveness  which  they  seek 
to  cast  upon  the  church. — To  prove  this  let  us  ask  the  ques- 
tion; where  is  the  power  of  ordination  lodged  in  the  Church 
of  Christ?  They  reply,  in  a  council  of  Presbyters.  Who 
lodged  it  there?  The  apostles  acting  under  the  authority 
of  Christ,  and  guided  by  his  holy  spirit, — say  they.  Now 
what  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  those  positions?  Why 
that  none  others  than  those  presbyterially  ordained,  are  law- 

him  in  his  pretensions:  Christ  has  excluded  him  in  his  providence,  from  admission 
through  the  ordinary  door,  and  if  he  has  no  evidence  of  miraculous  power  to  testify 
his  extraordinary  mission,  he  is  an  impostor !"    McLeod's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism. 


39 

fill  ministers  of  Christ,  There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclu- 
sion ;  for  the  apostles  did  not  institute  two  modes  of  ordina- 
tion, or  leave  the  matter  opened  and  unsettled  by  their  practice. 
With  them  there  was  but  one  church— but  one  source  of  power 
and  authority  in  it — and  but  one  ministry. — "  There  is  one 
body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of 
your  calling ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all  and  in  you 
all."— If  Presbyterial  ordination  be  the  institution  of  God — 
Episcopal  ordination  must  be  of  man.  They  cannot  both  be 
of  divine  authority,  and  consequently  one  or  the  other  must 
be  without  just  claims  to  the  obedience  of  man.  If  the  for- 
mer, prove  it  by  scripture  and  the  voice  of  antiquity  and  we 
surrender  Episcopacy  upon  the  spot. 

But  that  cannot  be  done  my  Brethren,  The  All  history  a- 
Bible  must  be  changed  and  the  writings  of  the  bvterian  clakn*" 
Fathers  must  be  changed,  before  it  can  be  shown 
that  Presbyterianism  is  of  God  and  Episcopacy  of  man.  The 
challenge  of  the  judicious  Hooker  has  remained  unanswered 
some  hundreds  of  years  past,  and  is  likely  to  continue  so, 
some  thousands  of  years  to  come,  "  A  very  strange  thing, 
sure  it  were,"  he  remarks,  "that  such  a  discipline  as  ye  (the 
Puritans)  speak  of  should  be  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles in  the  word  of  God,  and  no  church  ever  have  found  it  out, 
nor  received  it  until  this  present  time.  Contrariwise,  the  gov- 
ernment against  which  ye  bend  yourselves,  be  observed  every 
where,  throughout  all  generations  and  ages  of  the  Christian 
world,  no  church  ever  perceiving  the  word  of  God  to  be 
against  it.  We  require  you  to  find  out  but  one  church  upon 
the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  that  hath  been  ordered  by  your 
discipline,  or  hath  not  been  ordered  by  ours,  that  is  to  say,  by 
Episcopal  regimen,  since  the  time  that  the  blessed  Apostles 
were  here  conversant.  Many  things  out  of  antiquity  ye  bring 
as  if  the  purest  limes  of  the  church  had  observed  the  self- 
same orders  which  you  require ;  and  as  though  your  desire 
were  that  the  churches  of  old,  should  be  patterns  for  us  to 
follow,  and  even  glasses  wherein  we  might  see  the  practice 
of  that,  which  by  you  is  gathered  out  of  scripture.  But  the 
truth  is  ye  mean  nothing  less.  All  this  is  done  for  fashion's 
sake  only;  for  ye  complain  of  it  as  of  an  injury,  that  men 


40 

should  be  willed  to  seek  for  examples  and  patterns  of  govern- 
ment in  any  of  those  times  that  have  been  before." 

Let  those  who  reject  Episcopacy  meet  this  demand  if  they 
can — let  them  trace  a  succession  of  ordinations  by  Presbyte- 
ries, if  they  deem  such  a  thing  possible,  and  so  far  from  charg- 
ing them  with  exclusiveness,  we  will  give  up  our  own  system 
and  adopt  theirs. 

In  the  mean  time  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  assumption 
which  they  make — namely  that  presbyterial  ordination  has 
the  authority  of  scripture  and  the  sanction  of  primitive  prac- 
tice to  uphold  it,  carries  with  it  all  the  odious  features  which  it 
is  attempted  to  impress  upon  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  If  a 
council  of  presbyters  only  are  invested  with  ordaining  power, 
then  ordination  by  a  congregation  is  invalid,  and  this  throws 
the  Independents,  or  Congregationalists  and  the  whole  body 
of  Baptists  into  schism^ — ^not  only  so,  it  determines  against 
the  validity  of  ordination  by  a  Bishop,  in  whom  alone  the 
ordaining  power  resides  according  to  our  system,  and  conse- 
quently cuts  oflf  both  Episcopalians  and  Methodists.  Thus 
it  is  plain  that  the  presbyterial  system  is  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  as  exclusive  as  any  other.  It  is  obliged  to  be  so, 
my  friends,  in  the  very  nature  of  things ;  for  as  Christ  founded 
but  one  Church,  and  committed  to  it  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation— that  ministry  whether  constituted  after  the  model  of 
Congregationalism,  Presbyterianism  or  Episcopacy,  necessa- 
rily excludes  all  others.     The  grand  question  for 

What   wa3  ,,         ,  .        .  ,  i       />  /• 

the  ministry  of  tis  all  to  determme  IS,  what  was  the  lorm  oi  gov- 

the     Primitive    emmeut   established   in   the   primitive   church — 

church.  .  .  1  .   ,  ,  r. 

was  It  congregational,  presbyterial,  or  episcopal? 

Shall  we  appeal  to  scripture?     We  read  of  Apostles — elders 

— and  deacons,  and  it  is  agreed  that  these  orders  made  up  the 

ministry  of  the  church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,     We  do 

not  find  mention  once  made  of  ordination  by  a  congregation 

or  by  a  council   of  presbyters — on   the   contrary,  everywhere 

the  ministerial  authority  is  conferred   expressly  by  the  laying 

on  of  the  hands  of  the  Apostles — not  only  of  the  twelve,  but 

of  Paul  and  Barnabas — of  Timothy  and   Titus.     One  single, 

solitary,  passage  occurs  where  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 

the  presbytery  is  mentioned.*    And  even  in  that  case  we  do 

*  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."    1  Tim.  iv.  14. 


41 

not  know  that  an  ordination  was  referred  to.  But  granting 
that  it  was  an  ordination,  it  seems  that  the  presence  and 
action  of  an  Apostle  was  necessary  to  give  it  vaUdity.  For  St. 
Paul,  referring  to  tlie  transaction,  let  the  authority  imparted  by 
it,  be  what  it  may,  says'  expressly  it  was  by  the  putting  on 
of  his  hands. 

To  meet  the  arguments  of  Episcopalians  upon  this  subject, 
drawn  from  the  plain  warrant  of  scripture  and  the  undoubted 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  it  is  alledged  that  the  Apos- 
tles were  extraordinary  officers  and  could  have  no  succes- 
sors— and  that  after  their  disease,  the  government  of  the 
church  necessarily  devolved  upon  Presbyters.  All  this  ought 
to  be  proven.  We  cannot  consent  to  take  assertion  merely 
for  argument.  We  may  say  however,  in  passing,  that  nei- 
ther Barnabas,  nor  Silas,  nor  Jimias,  nor  Andronicus,  nor 
Timothy,  nor  Titus,  appear  to  have  exercised  any  extraordi- 
nary powers-— or  to  have  been  extraordinary  officers,  and  yet 
are  they  called  apostles — and  some  of  them  we  know  exercised 
the  power  of  ordination  and  governed  the  church. 

Again:  those  who  reject  Episcopacy  say  that  it  was  intro- 
duced by  little  and  little  about  the  beginning  of  the  2d  cen- 
tury, so  that  before  the  council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  it  was  gene- 
rally prevalent,  and  after  that  time  was  universal  till  the  era 

In  answer  to  the  presbyterian  gloss  on  these  words,  we  say :  the  word  presby- 
tery does  not  necessarily  signify  a  body  of  presbyters,  properly  so  called.  It  is  as 
justly  applicable  to  a  council  of  Apostles — for  every  Apostle  was  in  virtue  of  his 
office  a  Presbyter,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  every  presbyter  was  an  apostle. 
Every  Governor  of  the  State  is  ex-officio  a  Trustee  of  our  University — but  every 
Trustee  is  not  therefore  Governor  of  the  State. 

But  let  us  see  how  ancient  and  wise  men  understood  the  term  "presbytery"  as 
here  used  by  St.  Paul. 

St.  Chrysostom  says,  ■"  He  (St.  Paul)  does  not  here  speak  of  Presbyters,  but 
Bishops;  for  Presbyters  do  not  ordain  a  Bishop."  Theodoret.  " /«  this  place 
he  calls  those  Presbyters  {i.  e.  old  men)  who  had  received  the  grace  of  the  Jlpos- 
tleship." 

Theophylact.  "  TTiat  is,  of  Bishops ;  for  Presbyters  do  not  ordain  a  Bishop." 
"  Others,  as  Jerome,  Ambrose,  and  last  but  not  least,  John  Calvin,  maintain 
that  the  term  presbytery  refers  to  the  office  to  which  Timothy  was  then  ordained, 
and  interpret  the  passage  thus :  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  of  the  presbytery  or  priest- 
hood that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  by  prophecy  and  the  laying  on  of  hands." 

Lastly,  hear  St.  Paul's  explanation  of  his  own  words.  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee 
in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  vp  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by  the  put- 
ting on  of  my  hands."    2  Tim.  i.  6. 


42 

of  the  reformation.  "  A  very  strange  matter,  if  it  were  true," 
says  Archbishop  Bancroft,  "  that  Christ  should  erect  a  form  of 
government  for  the  ruhng  of  his  church,  to  continue  from  his 
departure  out  of  the  world,  until  his  coming  again,  and  that 
the  same  should  never  be  thought  of  or  put  in  practice  for  the 
space  of  fifteen  hundred  years :  or  at  least,  that  the  govern- 
ment and  kingdom  of  Christ  should  then  be  overthrown,  when 
by  all  men's  confessions,  the  divinity  of  his  person,  the  virtue 
of  his  priesthood,  the  power  of  his  office  as  he  is  a  prophet, 
and  the  honor  of  his  kingly  authority,  was  so  godly,  so  learn- 
edly, and  so  mightily  established  against  the  Arians  in  the 
council  of  Nice,  as  that  the  confession  of  the  Christian  faith, 
then  set  forth,  hath  ever  since  without  contradiction  been 
received  in  the  church." 

Strange  indeed  that  so  wonderful  a  change  in 
No  record  of  i[^q  foi-m  of  churcli  government,  as  that  denoted 
"  '  by  Episcopacy  from  parity  should  take  place 
and  no  record  be  made  of  the  fact — no  detail  of  the  circum- 
stances by  which  it  was  effected  be  mentioned  by  so  much  as 
one  writer.  Strange  beyond  the  power  of  explanation,  that 
light  and  trivial  matters  about  which  Christians  then  differed, 
should  find  a  place  in  the  annals  of  those  times,  and  yet  the 
wonderful  revolution  from  the  presbyterial  to  the  Episcopal 
mode  of  government  pass  utterly  unnoticed.  So  early  as  the 
time  of  Polycarp,  the  Bishop  of  Smyrna  and  the  disciple  of 
St.  John,  the  whole  christian  world  was  aghated  by  the  ques- 
tion, on  what  day  should  Easter  be  observed?  and  Polycarp 
journeyed  all  the  way  from  Asia  to  Rome  to  adjust  the  differ- 
ence. Can  we  really  think  that  such  things  would  form  mat- 
ters of  grave  discussion,  and  the  introduction  of  Episcopacy 
pass  unheeded?  When  people  make  such  demands  of  us, 
they  must  ask  us  to  lay  aside  the  common  sense  and  under- 
standing of  men. 

"When  I  shall  see"  says  the  learned  Chillingworth,  "all 
the  fables  in  the  metamorphosis  acted,  and  proved  true  sto- 
ries ;  when  1  shall  see  all  the  democracies  and  aristocracies 
in  the  world  lie  down  and  sleep,  and  awake  into  monarchies ; 
then  will  I  begin  to  believe,  that  presbyterial  government, 
having  continued  in  the  church  during  the  apostles'  time, 
should  presently  after  (against  the  Apostle's  doctrine  and  the 


43 

will  of  Christ)  be  whirled  about  like  a  scene  in  a  mask,  and 
transformed  into  Episcopacy.  In  the  meantime,  while  these 
things  remain  thns  incredible,  and  in  human  reason  impossi- 
ble, I  hope  I  shall  have  leave  to  conclude  thus :  Episcopal 
government  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  universally  received 
in  the  church,  presently  after  the  Apostles'  times." 

"  Between  the  apostles'  times  and  this  presently  after,  there 
was  not  time  enough  for,  nor  possibility  of  so  great  an  altera- 
tion." 

"  And  therefore,  there  was  no  such  alteration  as  is  pretended. 
And  therefore.  Episcopacy,  being  confessed  to  be  so  ancient 
and  catholic,  must  be  granted  also  to  be  Apostolic." 

Perhaps  enough  has  now  been  said  to  show  that  there  is 
no  just  ground  of  complaint  against  the  church,  because  of 
her  exclusiveness.  Since  she  occupies  in  this  respect,  the 
same  position  with  others.  If  to  be  built  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  being  the  chief 
corner  stone,  be  to  render  us  exclusive,  let  it  be  even  so. — 
We  cannot  help  it.  We  dare  not  undertake  to  amend  or  alter 
that  which  divine  wisdom  has  ordained  and  appointed. 

It  gives  me  no  pleasure,  I  am  sure,  to  show  the        tt  ■ 

o  r  ;  J  Union    upon 

points  of  difference  between  ourselves  and  other  proper  grounds 
denominations.  I  would  that  we  were  perfectly  ^^^'^^  ' 
joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  judgment,  and  that  we 
all  spake  the  same  things.  But  when  points  of  difference  are 
misunderstood  and  especially  when  they  are  misrepresented, 
silence  on  my  part  would  be  an  unworthy  abandonment  of 
known  obligations — would  be  a  criminal  indifference  to  the 
prevalence  of  error — and  a  disregard  of  your  most  important 
and  dearest  interests.  I  have  no  sympathy,  and  I  hope  you 
have  none,  with  that  mawkish  sensibility  which  fears  the 
honest  declaration  of  the  truth,  lest  it  make  others  feel  unplea- 
sant. I  have  no  respect  for  that  pretended  liberahty  of  opinion, 
which  under  the  name  of  charity,  will  embrace  all  professions 
of  Christianity  as  equally  sound  branches  of  the  one  catholic 
Church  of  Christ — and  will  cast  into  the  shade  all  distinctive 
principles  as  non  essential  and  of  mindr  consequence.  Chris- 
tianity, Brethren,  "  rejoiceth  in  the  truth,"  as  well  "  as  hopeth 
all  things,  and  endureth  all  things."  And  while  we  dare  not 
pronounce  upon  the  character  of  those  who  follow  unscriptural 


44 

aiid  (>noii('(Mis  sysfcnis — vvliilo  wo  loavn  thorn  to  tlie  just  and 
rii:;lit('oiis  judi^mnil  of  lliat  (lod  lu'foro  whom  we  must  all  stand 
at  l;isl,  ii  is  ncvcrlholoss  our  duly  to  show  thorn  thoir  error,  to 
load  ihoni  to  ouil)rac(>  tlu;  truth  and  hy  all  i)roi)cr  means  aid 
ihem  to  attain  elorual  Vifo. 

Having  therefore  made  a  heginning  upon  this  subject,  I 
shall,  (iod  being  my  helper,  go  into  it  thoroughly  and  leave 
nothing  unlouched  as  to  the  order,  doctrine  and  worship  of 
the  church,  which  may  conduct  you  to  a  correct  understand- 
ing of  her  principles  and  your  own  correspondent  privileges 
and  duties.  And  if  I  succeed  in  this,  I  know  the  necessary 
effect  will  be  to  inspire  you  with  increasing  reverence  for  the 
institutions  wliicli  God  lias  established — and  with  a  deeper 
sense  of  gratitude  to  that  good  providence  which  has  wrought 
wondrousiy  and  morcifnlly  for  you,  and  brought  yon  into  con- 
nexion with  his  holy  church. 


SERMON    III 


'•  BIT  WE  DESIRE  TO  HEAR  OF  THEE  WHAT  THOU  THINK- 
EST  :  FOR  AS  CONCERNING  THIS  SECT,  WE  KNOW  THAT 
EVERY    WHERE    IT    IS    SPOKEN    AGAINST." '• 

Acts  xxviii.  22. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  in  the  assaults  made  upon 
Christianity,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  the  chief  point 
of  attack  has  ever  been  the  ministry  of  the  church.  The  rea- 
son is  plain.     Every  system  which  proposes  to 

'^         ,     .      ,  ■  ,  1  The   ministry 

teach  men  their  duty  in  what  most   nearly  con-    a  necessary  de- 
cfirns  them,  must  have  defenders.     And  this  is    [?°^^  "!"  Chns- 

,  tianity  itself. 

more  especially  necessary,  in  a  case  where  the 
instructions  delivered,  are  professedly  based  upon  the  expres- 
sion of  the  divine  will.  If  there  were  not  an  order  of  men  set 
for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel,  it  would  verj  soon  cease  to  exert 
any  influence,  and -like  other  systems,  sink  into  oblivion,  from 
tlie  attacks  of  its  enemies,  and  from  the  indifference  of  man- 
kind to  whatever  does  not  in  some  way  subserve  their  pre- 
sent interests.  This  must  be  apparent  enough  to  any  one 
who  has  been  obser^^ant  of  the  prevailing  tone  of  moral  feel- 
ing, ill  those  communities  where  the  gospel  is  seldom  or  never 
preached,  and  in  those  countries  where  its  truths  are  much 
obscured  and  its  doctrines  much  corrupted.  The  principles 
of  Christianity  impose  a  check  upon  the  passions  of  men, 
and  thus  offer  a  restraint  to  those  pursuits  in  which  their  pas- 
sions lead  them  to  engage.  Its  present  rewards  are  not  attrac- 
tive to  the  unrenewed  mind  of  man,  while  its  promises  are  for 
the  most  part,  future  and  distant.  Hence  its  sanctions  are  of 
that  awful  and  impressive  character  which  the  Bible  addresses 
to  our  natural  and  instinctive  fears,  warning  us  of  a  judgment 
to  come,  and  the  solemn  retributions  of  eternity ;  and  hence  it 
u.ses  the  language  of  authority. 


46 

It  was  doubtless  from  a  wise  foresight  of  the  proneness  of 
the  human  mind  to  become  engrossed  with  "  temporal  things " 
to  the  exclusion  and  neglect  of  the  "  things  that  are  eternal," 
that  God  established  his  church,  having  in  it  appointments  to 
keep  alive  the  remembrance  of  our  future  accountability  and 
most  important  interests,  and  committed  to  it  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation,  charged  with  the  special  duty  of  rousing  men 
by  warning  and  rebuke,  from  the  slumbers  of  a  careless  and 
unreflecting  life— and  of  quickening  them  in  the  pursuit  of  a 
heavenly  crown  by  holding  up  to  their  view  the  glorious 
rewards  of  eternity. 

That  God  did  establish  his  church  in  the  world,  admits 
of  no  more  question,  than  that  he  made  a  revelation  to  man- 
kind. That  he  appointed  a  ministry  in  that  church,  deriving 
their  authority  to  act  in  the  appointments  of  religion  from  him, 
is  equally  plain  and  certain.  That  this  authority,  whatever  it 
be,  is  delegated,  no  one  will  deny.  By  delegated  authority,  I 
mean  of  course,  authority  to  act  in  the  name  of  another.  It  is 
authority  in  opposition  to  that  which  is  assumed.  And  that 
no  one  is  allowed  to  assume  such  authority  in  the  name  of 
God,  is  manifest  from  the  whole  recorded  history  of  the  divine 
dispensations,  as  well  as  clear  from  express  declarations  of 
Holy  Writ.  "  No  man  taketh  this  honor  to  himself" — says 
the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — "but  he  that  is 
called  of  God  as  was  Aaron."  "So  also  Christ  glorified  not 
himself  to  be  made  an  high  priest ;  but  he  that  said  unto  him, 
Thou  art  my  Son,  to  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  Such  a  decla- 
ration, enforced  by  the  reference  to  the  illustrious  examples 
mentioned  by  the  Apostle  in  confirmation  of  its  truth,  must 
settle  forever  the  question ;  whether  the  ministerial  authority 
may  be  assumed  or  not — it  must  for  ever  stamp  the  seal  of 
reprobation  upon  all  assumptions  of  the  ministry 
Presbyten'ifn,  on  without  Warrant.  Dr.  McKnight,  a  learned  Pres- 
tbe  ministry  of  |;)yterian  diviue  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  in  his 
celebrated  work  on  the  Epistles,  has  these  words : 
"  The  account  of  the  designation,  character  and  office  of  an 
high  priest,  the  Apostle  applies  to  Messiah,  by  observing,  that 
as  in  the  gospel  church,  no  man  can  take  the  dignity  of  an 
high  priest  to  himself  but  only  the  person  who  is  called  to 
the  office,  by  God,  like  Aaron  in  the  Jewish  Church — so  the 


47 

Christ  did  not,  by  his  own  authority,  assume  the  office  of 
high  priest  in  the  house  of  God ;  but  he  bestowed  that  dignity 
upon  him,  who  declared  him  his  son,  by  raising  him  from  the 
dead."  Aaron  was  set  apart  and  consecrated  to  the  priest- 
hood,— he  and  his  sons, — after  an  open  and  public  manner, 
according  to  the  express  command  of  God,  by  Moses.  His 
consecration  was  the  visible  and  declared  desisrnation  to  the 
office  to  which  God  had  called  him  and  his  family.  And  when 
afterwards  Korah  and  his  company  assumed  to  themselves  the 
same  office,  and  undertook  to  offer  incense  to  the  Lord,  upon 
the  alledged  plea,  that  all  the  congregation  were  holy,  God 
interposed  in  a  singular  and  awful  manner  for  their  punish- 
ment, and  commanded  a  memorial  to  be  made  to  be  a  token 
to  the  children  of  Israel  through  their  generations  that  no  one 
who  was  not  of  the  seed  of  Aaron,  should  come  near  to  oifer 
incense  before  the  Lord — that  is  to  execute  the  office  of  priest- 
hood— "  lest  he  perish  as  did  Korah  and  his  company."  As 
Aaron  was  publicly  called  to  his  office — so  was  Christ.  For 
it  was  not  until  his  baptism  in  Jordan  and  the  voice  which 
came  from  God,  proclaiming  him  to  be  his  beloved  Son,  that 
Jesus  began  his  public  ministry. 

Whatever  then  be  the  piety,  the  righteousness,  and  the  learn- 
ing of  any  man,  they  do  not  in  themselves  confer  the  power 
of  office,  however  necessary  they  may  be  to  the  proper  dis- 
charge of  its  duties.  There  are  doubtless  many  men  in  our 
country  qualified  to  fill  the  office  of  ambassador  p^^.^  ,  ^ 
to  foreign  courts,  yet  no  one  is  competent  to  fill  ifications  do  not 
the  station  unless  he  have  received  the  requisite  *^°"  ^^  °  '^^' 
grant  of  authority  to  do  so  from .  the  President  and  Senate. 
His  knowledge  and  talents,  be  they  ever  so  great,  will  not  be 
taken  as  his  credentials,  to  act  as  the  representative  of  the 
government.  Neither  will  his  declaration  cause  him  to  be 
received  as  the  nation's  accredited  agent.  In  short,  he  must 
present  his  commission  and  when  that  is  received,  his  acts, 
whether  he  possess  learning  and  skill  in  diplomacy  or  not,  are 
valid  and  binding  to  the  full  extent,  letter  and  spirit  of  his 
instructions. 

Just  so  there  are  many  possessed  of  high  and  eminent  quali- 
fications, by  reason  of  their  piety,  knowledge  and  other  gifts, 
to  act  as  ambassadors  of  Christ.     Still  these  talents,  however 


48 

essential  to  the  efficiency  of  the  ministry  do  not  any  more 
make  one  a  minister  of  Christ's  rehgion— than  knowledge  and 
skill  make  another  minister  to  a  foreign  conrt.  The  commis- 
sion or  authentic  letter  of  authority  derived  from  the  true  and 
proper  source  of  power  in  both  cases  is  indispensable  to  give 
validity  to  ministerial  acts.  In  either  instance,  the  minister 
acts  not  in  his  own  name,  but  in  the  name  of  another.  He  is 
an  agent  and  must  act  according  to  the  tenor  of  given  and 
prescribed  instructions.  The  message  which  he  bears  may  be 
most  unpleasant  to  deliver ;  but  it  is  not  his  own,  but  his  who 
sends  him,  and  he  must  deliver  it  even  in  the  terms  in  which 
he  received  it,  or  prove  faithless  to  his  trust.  Unless  these 
things  be  so,  Brethren,  the  government  which  God  has  estab- 
lished in  his  kingdom  on  Earth — called  the  Church — is  less 
certain  in  its  provisions — less  definite  in  its  objects — less  wise 
in  its  appointments — less  fixed  in  its  arrangements  and  less 
sure  in  its  results  than  the  institutions  of  men.  Once  make 
the  Church  the  mere  figment  of  man's  creation — once  regard  it 
in  the  light  only  of  a  human  contrivance  and  subject  to  the 
alteration  or  amendment  of  man's  presuming  wisdom,  in  any  of 
its  original  and  essential  features,  and  all  vitality  is  gone  from 
its  laws — all  authority  from  its  enactments — all  confidence  from 
its  promises  and  all  the  assurance  of  heavenly  hope  from  the 
participation  of  its  ordinances.  It  becomes  the  frail  and  totter- 
ing fabric  of  man's  caprice — built  up  of  "hay  and  stubble,"  and 
doomed  to  "  suffer  loss "  when  proved  by  the  purifying  fires 
of  God's  truth — Such  is  not  the  church  of  God  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief  corner  stone — Such  is  not  the  holy  citadel  of 
faith,  hope  and  charity,  against  which  the  gates  of  Hell  shall 
not  prevail.  "  Walk  about  Zion,  and  go  round  about  her :  tell 
the  towers  thereof.  Mark  ye  well  her  bulwarks,  consider  her 
palaces.  As  we  have  heard,  so  have  we  seen  in  the  city  of 
the  Lord  of  hosts,  in  the  city  of  our  God :  God  will  establish  it 
for  ever."  Thus  sang  David,  under  the  law :  and  if  his  words, 
inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  true  of  Jerusalem  or  Zion, 
the  type  of  the  christian  church,  how  much  more  shall  they 
not  be  thought  applicable  in  every  respect  to  that  which  St. 
Paul  calls  tlie  "■  House  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the 
living  God,  tlie  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth." 


49 

In  these  views  perhaps  we  shall  all  he  found  to  agree.  None 
will  deny  the  authority  and  perpetuity  of  Christ's  church :  none 
will  question  the  fact  that  the  christian  ministry  is  a  purely 
delegated  power  deriving  its  authority  alone  from  ^.^^  Ministry 
God.  If  any  deny  this  last  position,  we  leave  a  pureU  </e/ega- 
him  to  settle  the  point  with  St.  Paul,  who  says :  ^  power. 
"  As  we  were  allowed  of  God  to  be  put  in  trust  with  the  gospel, 
even  so  we  speak ;  not  as  pleasing  men,  but  God,  which  trieth 
our  hearts."  And  again,  "  Now  then  we  are  ambassadors  for 
Christ,  as  though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us;  wo  pray  you 
in  Christ's  steady  be  ye  reconciled  to  God."  Language  of  the 
like  import,  abounds  in  the  New  Testament.  "  The  glorious 
gospel  of  the  blessed  God,"  which  says  St.  Paul,  "  was  com- 
mitted to  my  trust."  "  So  account  of  us  as  of  the  ministers 
of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  Moreover 
it  is  required  in  stewards,  that  a  man  be  found  faithful."  "  Ap- 
proving ourselves  as  the  ministers  of  God."  "  Seeing  we  have 
this  ministry  we  faint  not."  "  All  things  are  of  God,  who  hath 
reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and,  hath  given  to 
us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation."  "  I  thank  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord,  who  hath  enabled  me,  for  that  he  counted  me  faithful, 
putting  me  into  the  ministry."  "  Take  heed  to  the  ministry 
which  thou  hast  received  in  the  Lord  that  thou  fulfil  it.'' 
"  Make  full  proof  of  thy  ministry."  Thus,  by  whatever  terms, 
office  in  the  church  is  described — whether  trust,  ambassador- 
ship, stewardship  or  ministry,  we  are  at  once  reminded  of  its 
delegated  character,  and  that  great  and  solemn  responsibihty, 
from  the  very  nature,  design  and  authority  of  the  charge, 
attaches  to  its  management. 

Indeed  it  seems  wonderful  that  any  other  view  should  ever 
have  been  taken  of  this  subject,  and  that  the  idea  should  have 
been  entertained  that  the  ministry  was  not  to  be  perpetuated  as 
originally  constituted  in  the  New  Testament.  For  when  we 
open  that  little  volume  and  inquire  into  the  character  of  Christ's 
religion,  we  are  met  at  the  outset  by  the  information  that  the 
Gospel  is  to  be  preached  to  all  nations  and  that  its  institutions 
are  to  rim  co-eval  with  its  propagation  and  extension  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  We  read  that  sacraments  were  ordained 
of  Christ  and  were  to  be  observed  by  all  those  in  all  places 
where  the  faith  was  embraced.     Has  not  this  religion  come 

7 


50 

down  even  to  us  ?  Have  not  its  sacraments  been  administered 
for  the  last  eighteen  centuries,  wherever  faith  in  the  Saviour 
has  been  proclaimed  and  received.  By  whom,  Brethren,  has 
this  faith  been  preached  and  these  sacraments  been  duly  ad- 
ministered? There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  these  questions. 
We  must  say  by  the  ministry.  The  church,  sacraments  and 
ministry  thus  become  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  Christ's  reli- 
gion. During  the  darkest  period  of  the  world's  history — when 
the  light  of  God's  truth  shone  dimly,  when  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  was  most  obscured  by  the  traditions  of  men  and  when 
corruptions  most  marred  the  fair  form  of  Christianity  under 
papal  misrule  and  usurpation,  still  the  church,  sacraments  and 
ministry  existed  and  gave  united  testimony  to  the  world  that 
Jesus  had  died  and  that  through  his  name  salvation  was  yet 
assured  to  the  hope  of  perishing  man.  The  great  facts  upon 
which  the  doctrine  of  redemption  is  founded,  have  thus  been 
preserved  to  the  world  and  would  be  again,  should  darkness 
once  more  cover  the  earth  and  gross  darkness  the  people. 

It  is  not  denied  by  any,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  Christ,  after 
his  resurrection  and  previous  to  his  ascension  into  Heaven, 
commissioned  the  eleven  Apostles  to  gather  his  church  and 
settle  its  order  and  government.  During  the  last  forty  days 
of  his  continuance  upon  earth,  we  are  told,  he  came  to  them 
from  time  to  time,  giving  them  commandments,  and  "  speaking 
of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God."  It  is  not  to 
be  supposed  in  reason  then,  that  they  were  left  in  ignorance 
as  to  the  extent  of  their  powers  or  as  to  the  order  of  adminis- 
tration which  Christ  would  have  established  in  his  church. 
Still  less  is  this  supposition  reasonable  when  we  remember 
that  the  Apostles  were  under  the  guidance  of  that  holy  spirit 
which  was  to  lead  them  into  all  truth  and  to  bring  to  their 
remembrance  all  things  whatsoever  that  Jesus  had  said  unto 
them.  In  fulfilment  of  their  trust,  it  is  certain  that  they  in  a 
othtrs  of  P'^blic  manner  ordained  Matthias  in  the  place  of 
the  Primitive  Judas,  and  "  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven 
^ties^hcAdcfthc  Apostles."  Equally  clear  and  certain  is  it,  that 
twelve.  others,    as   Paul    and    Barnabas   and    Silas,    and 

Timothy  and  Titus  and  James,  were  called  Apostles — and 
that  they  exercised  the  powers  of  Apostles  in  governing  the 
chiu'ch,  and  in  ordaining  to  the  holy  ministry.     These  there- 


51 

fore  according  to  the  express  language  of  scripture,  constituted 
the  first  or  highest  order  of  the  gospel  ministry.  The  testi- 
mony is  equally  direct  and  conclusive  as  to  the  constitution  of 
the  second  and  third  orders  of  the  ministry,  viz :  the  order  of 
Elders,  Bishops  or  Presbyters  as  they  are  interchangeably* 
termed  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  order  of  Deacons. 
These  are  the  orders  of  the  christian  ministry  as  unquestion- 
ably established  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  testimony 
of  the  New  Testament  is  silent  as  to  any  other  order  of  admin- 
istration. Its  canon  closes  with  this  arrangement,  and  if  any 
change  or  alteration  of  this  order  was  made,  the  evidence  of 
it  must  be  sought  for  elsewhere  than  in  the  records  of  inspi- 
ration. The  assertions  therefore  that  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles left  no  specific  directions  as  to  the  order  and  government, 
of  the  church,  and  that  the  whole  subject  was  left  open  to  the 
exigencies  of  times  and  occasions,  are  wholly  gratuitous — 
utterly  destitute  of  proof  and  flatly  contradicted  by  the  fact 
that  Christ  continued  forty  days  with  the  Apostles  giving  them 
commandments  and  speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the 
kingdom  of  God — and  by  the  fact  also  that  the  Apostles  did 

*  It  is  freely  admitted  by  Episcopalians  that  these  terms  are  thus  interchangeably 
used  in  the  New  Testament.  The  admission  is  improved  into  an  argument  in  the 
hands  of  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  who  most  ])reposterously  argue  from  a  com- 
munity of  names  to  a  community  in  rank  or  order.  The  fallacy  of  the  argument 
has  been  too  frequently  exposed  to  need  repetition  here.  But  it  may  nevertheless  be 
useful  to  subjoin  the  testimonies  of  Theodoret  and  Isidore  on  this  subject,  who  lived 
in  the  5th  century  and  whose  evidence  in  the  case  will  probably  be  considered  by 
the  "  wise  and  prudent,"  conclusive. 

Theodoret.  "  Epaphroditus  was  called  the  Apostle  of  the  Philippians,  because 
he  was  entrusted  with  the  Episcopal  government,  as  being  their  Bishop.  For 
those  now  called  Bishops,  were  anciently  called  Apostles ;  but  in  process  of  time, 
the  name  of  Apostle  was  left  to  those  who  were  truly  Apostles,  and  the  name  of 
Bishop  was  restrained  to  those  who  were  anciently  called  Apostles:  Thus  Epaphro- 
ditus was  the  Apostle  of  the  Philippians,  Titus  of  the  Cretans,  and  Timothy  of  the 
Asiatics." 

Isidore.  "  The  Bishops  succeeded  the  Apostles — they  were  constituted  through 
the  whole  world  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles."  Isidore  then  says,  that  "  Aaron 
the  High  Priest,  was  what  a  Bishop  is,  and  Aaron's  sons  prefigured  the  Presby- 
ters." 

Mosheim,  who  will  not  be  suspected  of  any  undue  partiality  towards  Episcopacy, 
says  of  Isidore,  the  Bishop  of  Pelusium.  "  He  was  a  man  of  uncommon  learning 
and  sanctity.  A  great  number  of  his  Epistles  are  yet  extant,  and  discover  more 
piety,  genius,  erudition  and  wisdom,  than  are  to  be  found  in  the  voluminous  pro- 
ductions of  many  other  writers." 


52 

admit  others  into  their  number,  and  did  ordain  Presbyters  and 
Deacons.  The  obscurity  and  lack  of  precision  which  some 
men  allege  to  be  thrown  around  the  order  and  government  of 
the  Apostolic  Church,  are  nothing  short  of  empty  pretences, 
and  are  about  as  available  to  excuse  their  irregularities  and 
schisms,  as  the  alleged  mysteries  of  faith  are  to  excuse  the 
indifference  and  sin  of  unbelief 

The  three-fold  constitution  of  the  ministry  as  above  stated, 
composed  of  Apostles,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  in  their  respec- 
tive orders,  we  hold  to  be  the  form  of  church  government  as 
clearly  defined  in  the  New  Testament.  As  it  was  established 
by  divine  authority  and  undeniably  continued  till  the  canon, 
and  of  course  the  testimony  of  sacred  scripture,  was  closed 
we  are  compelled  to  regard  it  as  of  perpetual  obligation  and 
unchangeable,  until  authority  can  be  shown  to  alter  it.* 

If  we  would  inquire  as  to  the  powers  which  these  three 
orders  exercised  respectively,  we  must  look  at  their  commis- 
sions and  at  their  acts.  As  to  the  Apostle's  we  find  that  thir- 
teen of  them  were  special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  They  were  chosen  for  that  specific  pui'pose ;  and  so 
far  could  have  no  successors.  For  the  idea  of  witnesses  hav- 
ing successors  carries  absurdity  on  its  very  face.  They  may 
be  cotcmporaneous  wilnesses  to  the  same  matters  of  fact,  as 
the  five  hundred  brethren  who  saw  Christ  after  his  resurrec- 
tion on  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  were  with  the  Apostles  then 
present,  witnesses  of  one  and  the  same  fact.     But  to  bear  tes- 

^,    ^      .       timony  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  not  the 

The  first  A-  "^ 

postiosnotwit-     only  duty  with  which  the  Apostles  were  charged. 

buf^'^mTnis^eis  ^^  ^^®  ^"'"'^  ^°  ^^^^^  commission  we  shall  see  that 
also  in  the  or-  they  were  specially  charged  to  preach  the  gospel 
and^chief^^gov-  ^°  ^^^  nations  and  to  baptize  them  in  the  name 
ernors  of  the  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  Accord- 
ingly we  find,  in  tracing  the  history  of  their  acts, 
that  they  not  only  testified  that  Christ  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  but  also  preached,  and  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  that  they  ordained  others  to  the  performance  of  the  like 
offices.  They,  or  at  least  a  portion  of  them,  possessed  also  the 
power  of  conferring  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by 

*  Archbishop  Whately's  preposterous  concessions  upon  this  point  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding. 


53 

the  imposition  of  their  hands.  Some  of  them  also  were  en- 
dowed with  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  In  these  things  then :  as 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ — as  prophets — as  bestow- 
ers  of  miraculous  gifts,  their  office  was  extraordinary  and  as 
such  they  had  no  successors. 

But  it  is  remarkable  that  in  the  commission  given  to  the 
apostles,  which  was  antecedent  to  the  day  of  Pentecost  when 
they  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — no  reference  is 
made  to  their  extraordinary  powers.  The  tenor  of  their  com- 
mission as  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  runs  thus. 
"  All  power  is  given  to  me  in  Heaven  and  in  Earth.  Go  ye 
therefore  and  teach  all  nations  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  Avhatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you,  and  lo  I  am  with  you  alway  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  them  again,"  are  the  words  of 
St.  John,  "  Peace  be  unto  you :  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me, 
even  so  send  I  you :  And  when  he  had  said  this  he  breathed 
on  them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost: 
Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and 
whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained." 

These  last  words,  respecting  the  power  of  remitting  and 
retaining  sins,  are  generally  understood  as  conveying  the 
power  of  discipline — of  inflicting  and  removing  church  cen- 
sures— a  power  claimed  and  exercised  by  all  denominations 
to  this  extent,  and  indeed  indispensable  to  the  preservation 
of  purity  and  order  in  any  society  whatever. 

The  commission  of  the  Apostles  sets  forth  that  they  are  to 
preach — to  baptize — and  to  exercise  discipline.  And  certainly 
so  far  at  least  no  one  will  deny  that  they  may  and  ever  have 
had  successors  in  office.  But  the  commission,  as  recorded  by 
both  the  evangelists,  clearly  indicates  that  they  were  invested 
with  yet  higher  powers.  Besides  making  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions— which  is  regarded  as  a  more  correct  rendering,  than 
teaching  all  nations — and  baptizing  them  ;  they  are  further- 
more to  teach  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ 
had  commanded.  Now  as  these  things  whatever  they  were, 
are  not  specifically  set  forth  in  the  commission  itself,  it  seems 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  we  must  search  for  them  in  what 
the  Apostles  taught  and  in  what  they  did.     They  have  re- 


54 

corded  what  they  taught  and  what  they  did  also :  at  least  to 
a  sufficient  extent,  we  must  suppose,  to  furnish  the  man  of 
God  thoroughly  unto  every  good  word  and  work.  And  among 
the  things  which  they  did,  acting  under  Christ's  commission, 
we  know  that  they  ordained  to  the  ministry,  and  in  so  doing 
not  only  established  a  precedent  for  those  whom  they  thus 
ordained,  to  do  as  they  had  done,  but  moreover  gave  express 
directions  to  that  end.  "  The  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of 
me  among  many  witnesses,"  says  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  "  the 
same  commit  thou,  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach 
others  also." 

The  words  of  St.  John  in  recording  the  grant  of  authority 
to  the  Apostles,  convey  the  idea  of  still  more  ample  powers. 
"As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  I  send  you:"  and  then 
breathing  on  them  said,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  What- 
ever may  be  made  out  of  these  words,  no  one  will  deny  that 
this  much  at  least  is  certain,  that  Christ  invests  his  Apostles 
with  full  power  and  authority  to  settle  the  order,  and  admin- 
ister the  affairs  of  his  kingdom  on  earth.  Whatever  then  they 
What  the  taught,  and  commanded  in  pursuance  of  this  ob- 
Apostles  did  as     jgcf   ^yg  }^q\^  to  be  binding  upon  the  consciences 

bindingas what         /.„,,.  rm  t  i    •       -i     ■,  ^ 

they  taught ;  01  an  believers.  That  tliey  ordained  elders  is  not 
what  did  they?  denied — that  these  elders  ministered  in  the  church 
in  subordination  to  a  higher  order  of  the  ministry  called  Apos- 
tles, is  as  clear  as  any  other  fact  recorded  in  the  sacred  wri- 
tings— that  not  a  single  instance  of  the  elders  exercising  the 
power  of  ordination,  has  ever  been  clearly  made  out  is  just 
as  certain,  as  that  the  higher  or  apostolic  order  did  exercise 
that  power.  That  the  Apostles  ordained  Deacons  is  admitted 
— that  these  deacons  both  preached  and  baptized,  and  so  far 
were  ministers,  stands  as  plainly  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  as  any  thing  else  to  be  read  therein.  Here  then. 
Brethren,  in  the  ministry  of  the  church  thus  constituted  of 
Apostles,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  is  that  Episcopacy  for  which 
we  contend  as  the  order  estabUshed  by  divine  wisdom  in 
Christ's  kingdom  on  earth.  Christ  said  he  would  be  with 
the  Apostles  "  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  Are 
we  to  suppose  then  that  the  Apostles  left  the  church  desti- 
tute of  a  ministry — that  they  left  the  whole  body  of  believers 
throughout  the  world,  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Rome, 


55 

Corinth,  and  a  hundred  other  places  where  they  had  planted 
the  faith  of  the  gospel,  in  an  unorganized  state — left  them  to 
choose  a  ministry  and  ordain  them  from  among  themselves — 
to  define  their  powers  and  settle  the  limits  of  their  jurisdic- 
tion? Such  a  supposition  lies  not  within  the  boundaries  of 
the  most  extravagant  credulity.  It  would  be  an  example 
without  precedent  in  the  history  of  man.  It  was  a  thing 
plainly  impossible  from  the  very  nature  of  the  christian  insti- 
tution, having  ordinances  to  be  administered,  and  by  neces- 
sary consequence,  requiring  an  order  of  men  for  that  purpose, 
invested  with  power  and  authority  to  perpetuate  the  office  of 
administration.  And  accordingly  the  very  first  witnesses  that 
present  themselves  to  our  examination,  after  the  writers  of  the 
.New  Testament  had  passed  off  the  stage  of  action — witnesses, 
•some  of  whom  saw  and  conversed  with  the  apostles  and  la- 
boured with  them  in  their  ministry — witnesses,  upon  whom 
we  are  obliged  to  rely,  to  prove  the  authenticity  and  genuine- 
ness of  the  new  Testament — these  witnesses  testify,  with  one 
voice,  that  the  ministry  of  the  church  in  their  day  was  consti- 
tuted after  the  model  of  the  Apostolic  age — that  they  did  not 
establish  it,  after  the  form  or  order  in  which  it  existed  among 
them  ;  but  that  they  had  so  received  it  from  the  apostles  them- 
selves. To  illustrate  the  value  of  these  witnesses,  rpj^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^ 
let  us  ask,  how  know  we  that  the  book  called  the  made  of  the 
New  Testament  was  written  in  the  age  of  the  f^^^^  tij^ee  cen- 
apostles  and  by  the  disciples  of  Christ  ?  Thomas  turies. 
Paine  asserts  that  it  was  written  three  hundred  years  later. 
How  do  we  meet  this  bold  and  unblushing  assertion  of  infi- 
delity? Simply  by  referring  to  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  first  three  centuries.  They  make  mention  of  the  gos- 
pels of  the  New  Testament  and  of  other  portions  of  the  same 
work  and  quote  passages  from  it.  Is  their  testimony  then 
good  and  sufficient  to  settle  the  simple  question  of  fact,  whether 
the  New  Testament  was  in  existence  ni  their  respective  ages 
or  not?  If  yea,  then  why  is  not  the  same  testimony  equally 
available  to  settle  the  question  of  fact,  as  to  what  was  tjie 
order  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Let  us  hear  them  speak  for 
themselves.  We  begin  with  Clement  of  Rome,  whom  St.  Paul 
commends  as  his  fellow  laborer  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippi- 


56 

ans.     He   wrote   about  40  years   after   our  Lord's  death   and 
during  the  hfe-time  of  St.  John. 

He  says  in  his  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.*  "  The  apos- 
tles preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the 
first  fruits  of  their  conversions  to  he  bishops  and  ministers 
over  such  as  should  afterwards  believed — "  The  apostles 
knew  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  should  conten- 
tions arise  concerning  the  episcopal  name  [or  order)  and 
for  this  cause,  having  perfect  foreknowledge  (of  these  things,) 
they  did  ordain,  those  tvhom  toe  have  mentioned  before;  and 
moreover,  did  establish  the  constitution,  that  other  approved 
men  should  succeed  those  who  died  in  their  office  and  minis- 
try:'— "  To  the  high  priest  his  proper  offices  loere  appointed  ; 
the  priests  had  their  proper  order,  and  the  levites  their  ptecu-, 
liar  services  or  deaconships ;  and  the  laymen  what  was  pro- 
per for  laymen^  This  St.  Clement  applies  to  the  distribu- 
tion, of  orders  in  the  Christian  Church,  bishops,  priests  and 
deacons. 

Such  is  the  plain,  unequivocal  and  decisive  testimony  of  the 
earliest  ecclesiastical  writer,  whose  works  have  reached  us,  next 
after  the  apostles.  A  writer  who  was  himself  chosen  by  the 
apostles  and  appointed  to  preside  as  bishop  over  one  of  the 
churches  which  they  had  planted. 

The  next  witness  we  produce  is  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
A.  D.  71.  He  was  constituted  Bishop  of  Antioch,  by  the  apos- 
tles then  living,  and  wrote  epistles  to  various  churches,  while 
on  his  journey  to  Rome,  in  which  he  exhorts  the  inferior  minis- 
ters, presbyters  and  deacons,  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  bishop. 
He  sealed  the  truth  of  his  religion  by  suffering  martyrdom, 
being  thrown  to  wild  beasts  at  Rome,  by  order  of  Trajan,  less 
than  ten  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  or  about  A.  D.  107. 
To  the  Ephesians,  after  speaking  of  their  "excellent  bishop 
Onesimus,"  he  thus  writes:  ^^  For  even  Jesus  Christ  our  in- 
separable life,  is  sent  by  the  will  of  the  Father;  as  the 
bishops,  appointed  iinto  the  utinost  bounds  of  the  earth,  are 
by  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ.''^ 

To  the  Magn,esians :  "  /  exhort  you  that  you  study  to  do 
all  things  in  a  divine  concord  ;  your  bishop  presiding  in  the 

•  See  Oxford  Edition,  1677,  §.  42,  p.  89. 


57 

place  of  God,  your  presbyters  in  the  place  of  the  council  of 
the  apostles ;  and  your  deacons  most  dear  to  me,  being  en- 
trusted with  the  m,inistry  of  Jesus  ChristP  Such  language 
partakes  largely,  you  perceive,  of  the  hyperbolical  style  of  the 
orientals.  We  are  quoting  Ignatius,  you  will  remember,  not 
to  settle  the  point  of  reverence  and  dignity  due  to  the  min- 
istry, but  to  show  the  fact  stated,  that  the  ministry  consisted 
of  three  orders.  In  this  same  epistle  he  mentions  by  name, 
the  bishop  Damas,  the  presbyters  Bassus  and  Apollonias,  and 
the  deacon  Sotia. 

To  the  Trallians :  "  Let  all  reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  bishop  as  the  Father,  and  the  presbyters  as 
the  Sandhedrim  of  God  and  college  of  the  apostles — he  that 
does  any  thing  without  the  bishop  and  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons, is  not  pure  in  his  conscience^ 

To  the  Philadelphians :  "  To  those  who  were  in  unity  with 
their  bishop  and  presbyters  and  deacons — there  is  one  bishop 
ivith  his  presbyters,  and  the  deacons  my  fellow  servants — 
Give  heed  to  the  bishop  and  to  the  presbytery  and  to  the  dea- 
cons— do  nothing  without  the  bishop.'''' 

To  the  Smyrneans,  over  whom  Polycarp  the  disciple  of  St. 
John,  presided  as  bishop :  "  See  that  ye  all  folloio  your  bishop, 
as  Jesus  Christ  did  the  Father ;  and  the  presbyters  as  the 
apostles  ;  and  reverence  the  deacons  as  the  command  of  God 
— iny  soul  be  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their  bishoj)  ivith 
their  presbyters  and  deacons.'''' 

Is  it  posible  for  any  intelligent  and  sound  mind  to  read 
these  quotations  and  come  to  any  other  conclusion  than  that 
there  were  three  orders, — bishops,  priests  and  deacons — in  the 
christian  ministry  in  the  age  of  Ignatius  ?  If  his  words  prove 
any  thing  they  undoubtedly  show  that  in  the  first  century, 
the  Christian  Church  was  episcopally  constituted — that  the 
three  orders  of  the  ministry  were  regarded  as  of  divine  insti- 
tution and  considered  necessary  to  the  regular  constitution  of 
every  church. 

We  next  cite  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna.  In  his  epistle  to 
the  Philippians  he  says :  "  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters  that 
are  with  him,  to  the  Church  of  God  tohich  is  at  Philippi,  &c." 
— "  the  deacons  must  be  blameless  as  the  ministers  of  God  in 
Christ  a?id  not  of  men " — "  being  subject  to  the  priests  and 

8 


58 

deacons — and  let  the  elders  he  compassionate — aiid  merciful 
towards  ally  Here  again  is  direct  evidence  against  that  parity 
which  opposes  itself  to  episcopacy. 

We  come  to  the  second  century,  and  here  we  find  Trenasns 
the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  and  Bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  180,  using 
the  succession  of  Bishops  from  the  apostles  as  an  argument 
against  heretics.  He  says :  "  We  can  reckon  up  those  whom 
the  apostles  ordained  to  be  bishops  in  the  several  churches 
and  who  they  were  that  succeeded  them  down  to  our  /ime." 
And  lie  proceeds  to  give  us  the  succession  from  the  apostles 
dow?i  to  Eleutherius,  the  12th  in  order,  who  ivas  Bishop  of 
Rome  lohen  Irenceus  wrote.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  cotem- 
porary  of  Irenseus,  enumerates  the  three  several  and  distinct 
orders,  with  their  respective  offices.  His  words  are,  "  There 
are  some  precepts  which  relate  to  presbyters^  others  which 
belong  to  bishops,  and  others  respecting  deacons.'''' 

TertuUian,  a  celebrated  presbyter  of  the  church  in  Africa, 
lived  at  the  close  of  the  2nd  and  in  the  forepart  of  the  3rd 
century.  He  testifies  that  bishops  were  settled  in  his  native 
land  and  had  been  so  from  the  earliest  introduction  of  the  gos- 
pel into  the  country.  Writing  against  heretics,  he  says,  "  let 
them  show  the  order  of  their  bishops,  that  by  their  successioti 
deduced  from  the  beginning,  ice  may,,  see  whether  their  first 
bishop  had  any  of  the  apostles  or  dpostolical  men,  who  did 
likewise  jJcrsevere  with  the  apostles,  for  his  founder  and  pre- 
decessors ;  for  thus  the  apostolical  churches  do  derive  their 
succession,  as  the  church  of  Smyrna  from  Polycarp,  whom 
John  the  apostle  placed  there — the  church  of  Rome  from 
Clement,  (fcc." 

Speaking  of  baptism,  Tertullian  says:  "  The  bishop  has  the 
power  of  conferring  baptism,  and  under  him  the  presbyters 
and  deacons,  but  not  loithout  the  authority  of  the  bishop." 

Origen,  another  famous  presbyter  of  the  same  age,  in  his 
comment  on  the  Lord's  prayer  has  these  words — "  there  is  a 
debt  due  to  deacons,  another  to  presbyters,  and  another  to 
bishops,  which  is  the  greatest  of  all  and  exacted  by  the 
/Saviour  of  the  ivhole  church  and  ivho  will  severely  punish 
the  non  payment  of  it." 

Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  240.  From  the  writings 
of  this  illustrious  Father,  we  might  compile  a  volume  upon  the 


59 

subject  before  us.  He  expressly  refers  the  constitution  of  the 
ministry  in  the  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons  to 
the  will  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 

Ep.  xlv.  to  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome.  "  We  ought  chiefly^ 
my  Brother^  to  endeavour  to  keep  that  unity  which  ivas  en- 
joined hy  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  to  us  their  successors,  to 
be  carefully  observed  by  i/5." 

Ep.  Ixvi.  to  Florentius.  "  Christ  said  to  the  apostles  and  by 
that,  to  all  Bishops  or  governors  of  his  church  who  succeed 
the  Apostles  by  vicarious  ordination  and  are  in  their  stead 
'  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me.''  " 

Ep.  Ixxx.  to  Successus.  "  Valerian  {the  emperor)  wrote  to 
the  Senate  that  the  Bishops  and  the  Presbyters  and  the  Dea- 
cons should  be  prosecuted^^ 

Optatus  Milevitanus,  A.  D.  365,  Bishop  of  Mileve,  or  Mela, 
in  Africa.  "  The  church  has  her  several  m,embers,  bishops, 
presbyters,  deacons,  a?id  the  co?npatiy  of  the  faithful.'^ 

"  You  found  in  the  church,  deacons,  presbyters,  bishops : 
you  have  made  them  laymen ;  acknowledge  that  you  have 
subverted  soulsP    L.  2.  Con.  Parmenianum. 

If  the  time  allowed  we  might  quote  from  Ambrose  of  Milan, 
A.  D.  370.  Jerome,  A.  D.  380.  St.  Augustin,  A.  D.  420,  and 
many  others  both  befor*^  and  after  them — particularly  Eusebius, 
A.  D.  320,  the  first  ecclesiastical  historian,  and  who  has  given 
us  catalogues  of  the  bishops  by  name,  in  the  order  of  their  suc- 
cession, in  all  the  principal  churches  from  the  Apostles  down 
to  his  time — They  all  testify  to  the  three-fold  constitution  of 
the  ministry  and  the  authority  of  bishops  to  ordain  and  to 
govern  the  church.  We  might  quote  from  that  very  ancient 
work,  certainly  existing  in  the  3rd  century,  called  the  Apostolic 
canons,*  to  prove  the  same  thing.  From  the  decrees  of  coun- 
cils, in  ages  when  the  faith,  doctrine  and  order  of  the  Gospel 
were  confessedly  kept  pure  by  the  great  body  of  the  faithful. 
We  might  travel  along  down  the  stream  of  time,  through  all 
the  adverse  and  prosperous  conditions   of  the  church — when 

*  "The  Apostolic  Canons  are  eighty-five  ecclesiastical  laws  or  rules,  profess- 
edly enacted  by  the  Apostles,  and  collected  and  preserved  by  Clemens  Romanus. 
The  matter  of  them  is  ancient ;  for  they  describe  the  customs  and  institutions  of 
Christians,  particularly  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental  churches,  in  the  2nd  and  3rd 
centuries.  But  the  phraseology  indicates  a  compiler  living  in  the  3rd  century." 
Murdoch's  Mosheim,  vol.  i.p.  224,  v.  13.    (New  Haven,  1832.) 


60 

oppressed  and  when  protected — when  maintaming  purity  of 
doctrine  and  practice,  and  when  introducing  and  sanctioning 
corruptions,  and  all  along  we  shall  find  an  accumulation  of 
evidence  to  the  fact  we  have  been  laboring  to  establish,  that 
Episcopacy  was  the  settled  order  and  government  of  the 
church.  We  might  cite  abundant  authorities,  even  the  most 
learned  and  distinguished  of  those  who  have  rejected  Episco- 
pacy to  show  that  from  the  2nd  century  down  to  the  16th  it 
was  of  universal  prevalence  in  the  christian  church.  We 
might  bring  forward  the  Lutherans,  Calvin,  Beza,  Melancthon 
and  others  to  prove  not  only  the  lawfulness  of  Episcopacy,* 
but  the  lamentable  necessity  which  some  of  them  pleaded  to 
justify  their  formation  of  another  and  different  system  of 
church  government.  But  what  v\^ould  it  all  avail?  Men  of 
this  age  have  become  wiser  than  the  Apostles,  the  Fathers 
and  the  Reformers — wiser  and  holier  than  those  who  sealed 
their  testimony  to  Christ's  truth,  and  their  fidelity  to  his  cause 
with  their  blood — and  they  ask  what  are  all  your  proofs  worth  1 
The  succession  is  incapable  of  proof  or  it  has  been  broken — 
or  it  has  been  vitiated  and  rendered  worthless  by 
objection  to  the  the  Corruption  of  those  through  whose  hands  it 
Apostolic  Sue-     has   come ! — Let   us   then   meet  them    on   these 

cession. 

grounds  and  consider  these  their  strong  reasons. 
1.  The  succession  is  incapable  of  proof  Is  the  testimony  of 
Clement,  Ignatius,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Euse- 
bius,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Austin  and  others,  sufficient  to  prove 
the  authenticity  and  uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  in  their  respective  ages?  Then  why  is 
their  testimony  to  be  rejected  when  it  equally  proves  the  estab- 
lishment and  universal  prevalence  of  Episcopacy?  Is  the 
New  Testament  to  be  rejected  because  you  cannot  show  by 
direct  and  positive  evidence,  that  it  was  in  existence  every 
year  since  it  was  written?  Then  why  is  Episcopacy  to  be 
repudiated,  unless  you  prove  its  existence  every  single  year 
by  positive  proof,  since  the  death  of  the  Apostles  ?  But  copies 
of  the  New  Testament  Vvere  multiplied  very  soon  and  spread 
over  the  world  and  most  carefully  guarded  against  alteration. 
And  so  bishops  were  multiplied  as  the  faith  of  the  gospel 
spread,  and  their  office  was  neither  sought  after,  because  it 

•  See  Appendix  A. 


61 

was  the  post  of  chief  danger  in  times  of  persecution,  and  in 
this  state  the  church  was  till  320— and  the  office  itself  was 
most  carefully  fenced  by  canons  against  intrusion  into  it,  or 
luiwarrantabie  assumption  of  its  powers.  The  first  of  the 
Apostolical  canons  reads  "  Let  a  Bishop  be  consecrated  by 
two  or  three  Bishops." 

Now  here  is  the  statement  of  a  principle,  Breth-        The   princi- 
ren,  upon  which  this  whole  controversy  about  the     P^*^  which  may 

settle  the  con- 

succession  turns.  What  is  ordination?  It  is  tioversy.  Or- 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  desisnation  to  office     'imati""  '•  What 

O  3  Id  It? 

— or  the  right  to  exercise  certain  powers  delega- 
ted by  the  great  head  of  the  church  for  the  edification  of  his 
members'?  You  are  not  to  imagine  that  we  hold  that  a  sort 
of  mysterious  influence  or  invisible  virtue  has  been  stream- 
ing down  from  the  hands  of  Bishops  upon  the  heads  of  those 
whom  they  have  ordained  in  all  past  ages,  and  that  this  is 
the  Apostolical  Succession.  No !  It  is  simply  the  right  to 
exercise  certain  functions,  certified  by  its  proper  evidence — 
ordination  is  a  thing  transacted  openly  and  publicly  in  which 
ordinarily  many  persons  take  part.  But  the  Apostolical  canon 
requires  that  a  bishop  shall  be  ordained  by  at  least  two  or 
three  bishops,  and  the  proof  of  this  fact,  in  the  absence  of 
miracles,  is  the  proper  certificate  to  all  persons  that  the  person 
ordained  is  invested  with  that  delegated  authority,  which  he 
could  not  of  right  assume.  In  short,  ordination  is  the  regular 
induction  to  office  by  lawful  authority  in  opposition  to  its  un- 
authorised and  arrogant  assumption.  Now  it  is  clear  that 
such  a  fact  is  as  capable  of  proof  as  any  other  fact.  And  con- 
sequently a  succession  of  ordinations  is  of  far  more  easy  proof 
— than  lineal  succession — such  for  example  as  the  succes|ion 
of  the  Aaronic  priesthood.  For  the  ordination  of  a  bishop 
would  only  take  place  at  the  end  of  his  predecessor's  life — 
consequently  the  proofs  would  have  to  be  produced  at  long 
intervals — after  considerable  periods  of  time  had  elapsed,  and 
the  longer  a  Bishop  lived,  the  fewer  would  be  the  number  of 
links  in  the  chain  of  succession.  Thus  the  Episcopate  of  the 
late  Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania  extended  through  fifty 
years;  he  is  therefore  the  only  link  between  John  Moore,  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  consecrated  Feb.  12,  1775  and  Jackson 


62 

Kemper,  the  present  Bishop  of  Missouri,  consecrated  by  Bishop 
White,  Sept.  25,  1835,     And  hence. 

It  is  far  easier  to  trace  the  Episcopal  succes- 
al  descent  more  sion  through  hundreds  of  years,  than  it  is  for 
easily      proved    ^ny  Hvinff  man  to  trace  his  descent  to  his  great 

than  natural.  -^     ir    i  mi  r    t         i      i 

grandfather.  The  truth  of  hrieal  descent,  m 
every  step,  is  dependent  upon  the  veracity  of  a  single  witness 
— and  that  is  the  mother  in  each  case :  Whereas  the  truth 
and  certainty  of  the  Episcopal  succession  are  made  evident  by 
the  testimony  of  many  witnesses  to  a  public  transaction,  which 
is  made  matter  of  public  record.  No  one  questions  the  succes- 
sion of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  which  we  all  know  was  trans- 
mitted by  carnal  descent ;  although  the  truth  of  that  succes- 
sion depended  in  each  descent,  upon  the  single  testimony  of  a 
woman  as  to  a  point  of  which  no  human  being  besides  herself 
could  have  any  certain  knowledge.  And  yet,  with  such  a 
fact  as  this  admitted  and  unquestioned,  men  who  stand  up 
before  the  people  to  argue  questions  of  theology,  will  in  the 
face  of  day,  gravely  assert  that  the  Apostolical  succession  is 
incapable  of  proof! 

Is  it  morally  possible,  think  you,  that  any  man  could  suc- 
cessfully claim  and  exercise  the  Episcopal  office  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church  of  this  country  or  in  England  at  this  day,  without 
showing  that  he  had  received  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordi- 
nation 1  You  know  well  what  would  be  the  fate  of  any  such 
eflfort — you  know  that  it  would  meet  with  the  ridicule  and 
contempt  which  have  attended  the  foolish  attempts  of  Dashiell 
and  George  M.  West,  to  set  up  a  pseudo-Episcopacy.  If  then 
such  a  thing  be  morally  impossible  now,  let  those  who  declaim 
a^inst  the  apostolical  succession,  show  how  it  was  morally 
possible  in  any  preceding  age  of  the  church,  acting  under 
identically  the  same  rule  of  ordination  or  consecration.  The 
rule  of  the  church  of  the  first  three  centuries  was,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  that  "  a  Bishop  be  ordained  by  two  or  three 
Bishops  " — this  rule  is  repeated  at  the  general  council  of  Nice, 
325,  A.  D. — only  with  its  provisions  extended  so  as  to  make 
Episcopal  consecrations  more  difficult  of  performance,  thereby 
increasing  the  evidence  to  the  fact  in  each  case,  in  these  words : 
*'  xV  Bishop  ought  to  be  constituted  by  all  the  Bishops  of  the 
province,   but  if  this   be  not  practicable  by  reason   of  urgent 


63 

necessity,  three  must  by  all  means  meet  together,  and  with 
the  consent  of  those  that  are  absent,  let  them  perform  the  ordi- 
nation." Such  was  the  regulation  established  in  every  church 
throughout  the  world — in  the  British,  the  Gallican,  the  Spanish, 
tlie  Roman,  the  Carthaginian,  the  Alexandrian,  the  Antiochean 
and  all  others.  Such  is  nearly  the  identical  rule  that  prevails 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States. 

Trace  the  lines  of  Episcopal  succession  where  you  please, 
that  at  Canterbury,  at  Aries  or  Lyons  in  France,  or  at  Rome, 
or  at  Constantinople,  and  what  does  it  prove  ?  Why,  that  these 
charches  never  allowed  of  any  other  than  Episcopal  conse- 
cration or  ordination.  If  then  the  rejectors  of  Episcopacy  will 
take  any  of  these  lists  and  show  where  it  is  defective — if  they 
will  show  us  cause  to  believe  that  in  any  one  case  or  in  any 
number  of  cases,  the  rule  established  throughout  the  church 
has  been  violated  or  neglected  or  evaded,  we  shall  then  have 
before  us  a  matter  admitting  of  discussion — But  until  this  is 
done,  we  shall  take  their  broad  declarations  about  the  Episco- 
pal succession,  as  naked  assertions,  which  can  only  be  met  by 
positive  and  direct  and  unequivocal  denial.  (Appendix  B.)  But 
the    Episcopal    succession,    they   say,   has    been 

,       ,  r,ri  ,      1    •  ,  •  The  story  of 

broken.  When  asked  ni  what  mstance,  we  are  Pope  Joan  does 
referred  to  the  alleged  alleviation  of  a  woman     "°^  ^.^'^'^^  ^^,^^ 

°  .  question  at  all. 

named  Joan,  to  the  Papacy  in  the  9th  century. 
Now  be  it  observed  here  that  whether  the  story  be  true  or 
false,  it  does  not  invalidate  the  succession  even  as  maintained 
by  Romanists — much  less  does  it  oppugn  the  strength  of  the 
argument  and  evidence  which  sustains  the  succession  in  the 
Episcopal  churches  which  have  dissented  from  Rome.  I  am 
in  no  way  concerned  to  prove  or  disprove  the  truth  of  the  story, 
otherwise  than  as  every  man  is  concerned  to  know  the  cer- 
tainty of  history ;  for  as  I  shall  show  the  succession  for  which 
we  contend,  although  it  is  indirectly  connected  with  the  Ro- 
man church,  as  Christianity  itself  at  one  time  was,  yet  it  does 
not  run  through  the  line  of  Roman  Pontiffs  at  all — Bat  let  us 
consider  the  story  itself     Mosheim,*   the  ecclesiastical   histo- 

*  Gieseler,  who  cares  little  for  the  Apostolic  succession,  shows  that  the  alleged 
Papacy  of  Joan,  is  not  only  apocryphal,  but  chronologically  impossible,  there  being 
scarce  any  interval  between  LEO  IV.  and  BENEDICT  til.  See  Cunningham's 
Translation,  vol.  ii.  p.  20.     (Philadelphia  edition.) 


64 

rian,  whose  authority  in  this  case  at  least  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned, says  that  "  between  the  pontificate  of  Leo  IV.  who 
died  in  the  year  855,  and  that  of  Benedict  HI.  a  certain 
woman,  who  had  the  art  to  disguise  her  sex  for  a  sonsider- 
able  time,  is  said  by  learning,  genius  and  dexterity,  to  have 
made  good  her  way  to  the  papal  chair,  and  to  have  governed 
the  church  with  the  title  and  dignity  of  pontiff  about  two 
years,"  After  stating  that  this  story  gave  rise  to  long  and 
embittered  discussion,  some  asserting  and  others  denying  its 
truth,  he  expresses  his  opinion  that  some  unusual  event  had 
occurred  at  Rome,  and  concludes  by  observing  that  "  what  it 
was  that  gave  rise  to  this  story  is  yet  to  be  discovered,  and  is 
likely  to  remain  so."  According  to  history  the  whole  rests 
upon  a  say  so — it  is  at  best  but  a  flimsy  argument  that  can 
be  constructed  upon  so  insecure  a  foundation.  But  take  it  as 
all  true,  out  and  out,  does  it  invalidate  the  Episcopal  succes- 
sion ?  Not  at  all.  For  first  of  all,  if  it  did,  it  must  be  shown 
that  the  Popes  of  Rome  consecrate  bishops — which  they  do 
not — and  secondly,  it  must  be  shown  that  daring  the  two  years 
in  which  Joan  is  said  to  have  swayed  the  papal  sceptre,  all  the 
bishops  in  the  Roman  Church  must  have  died — and  that  Joan 
herself  consecrated  successors  to  them — and  this  would  indeed 
have  broken  the  chain  of  Roman  succession.  But  it  must  be 
shown,  thirdly,  in  order  to  invalidate  the  succession  in  other 
churches,  that  all  the  bishops  the  world  over  must  have  died 
in  those  two  years — that  the  churches  in  Britain,  France,  Ger- 
many, Italy,  Spain,  in  all  Greece,  in  all  Africa,  in  all  the  East, 
lost  all  their  bishops  within  those  two  years  when  Joan  was 
in  the  papal  chair.  Now,  willing  as  we  are  to  stretch  the  line 
of  credulity  to  the  measure  of  other  men's  demands  in  order  to 
please  them,  this  is  rather  further  than  in  reason  or  in  common 
sense  we  can  go.  The  truth  is,  that  those  who  have  thrown 
away  Episcopacy,  feel  bound  to  show  reason  for  abandoning 
an  institution  so  ancient  and  attended  by  so  many  marks  of 
its  scriptural  authority ;  and  being  hard  pressed  for  arguments, 
they  have  caught  at  this  story  about  Pope  Joan,  which  com- 
bines the  plausible  with  the  ridiculous,  to  demolish  the  whole 
theory,  as  they  think,  of  the  apostolical  succession.  They 
know  well  that  ridicule  often  prevails,  when  solid  arguments 
are  lacking,  and  boldly  asserting  that  a  woman  was  once  Pope, 


65 

ask  what  is  such  a  succession  worth  ? — as  though  they  had 
destroyed  the  apostohcal  succession  by.  showing  that  a  Hnk 
was  lacking  in  the  Roman  ciiain  !  But  I  would  ask  what 
becomes  of  the  succession  in  the  British  church  ? — The  bishops 
of  that  church  were  not  consecrated  by  the  pope  of  Rome — 
the  same  may  be  asked  of  any  other  church  ? — what  becomes 
of  the  succession  in  Spain,  in  France,  in  Sweden,  Denmark, 
Norway,  in  Greece,  in  other  Eastern  churches?  Why,  had 
the  Pope  undertaken  to  consecrate  bishops  for  all  these,  he 
might  have  abandoned  every  thing  else,  and  the  triple  crown 
had  sat  heavily  indeed  on  his  brows — too  heavily  indeed  for 
any  mortal  to  bear!  The  truth  is,  as  before  jhe  succes- 
stated,  the  Pope  does  not  consecrate  bishops  at    ^ion  of  bishops 

,,  1-1  ■        n  ,.  in   the    church 

all — unless  it  be  some  m  Rome  or  parts  adja-  not  through  the 
cent,  of  which  1  am  not  certainly  informed  one  ^opes  of  Rome, 
way  or  the  other, — and  therefore  the  validity  of  the  succ^sion 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  who  is  Pope,  or  whether 
there  be  any  Pope  at  all.  One  remark  more  before  quitting 
this  part  of  the  subject :  I  would  ask  those  who  are  so  fond  of 
quoting  Pope  Joan  and  her  reign  of  two  years  to  destroy  the 
succession,  whether  the  usurpation  of  Queen  Athaliah  for  six 
years  of  the  throne  of  David — and  the  destruction  by  her  of 
all  the  seed  royal  but  Joash,  vitiated  the  promise  of  God  to 
David  that  a  man  should  not  fail  hitn  to  sit  upon  his  throne ! 
Did  the  intrusion  of  Athaliah  for  six  years  destroy  or  break 
the  line  of  succession  of  kings  to  come  from  his  loins?  or  in- 
validate God's  promise? 

But  after  all,  say  the  opponents  of  the  apostolical  succession, 
although  you  make  out  your  case  by  historical  testimony,  yet 
the  succession  comes  through  channels  so  impure  that  we  can- 
not receive  it.  This  objection  is  grounded  on  the  gratuitous 
assumption,  that  the  succession  must  be  traced  through  the 
Roman  pontiffs.  Now  as  already  stated,  the  succession  does 
not  run  in  this  channel,  because  the  pontiff  does  not  conse- 
crate. "We  will  state  here  upon  the  authority  of  the  Romish 
canon  law,  what  power  the  Pope  does  claim  in  reference  to 
bishops,  that  we  may  see  how  far  his  pretensions  interfere, 
if  good,  with  the  validity  of  the  succession.  "  The  Pope  holds 
the  place  of  God  in  the  earth,  so  that  he  can  confer  ecclesi- 
astical  benefices  without  dimunition."     In  opposition   to   this 

9 


66 

claim,  Henry  8th  proclaimed  himself  head  of  the  realm .  and 
church  of  England.  Again.  "  The  translation,  the  deposition 
or  resignation  of  a  bishop  is  reserved  to  the  Roman  Pontiff 
alone,  not  so  much  by  any  canonical  constitution  as  by.  the 
divine  institntion."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remind  you  that 
this  claim  was  long  and  successfully  resisted  by  the  British 
church — and  that  it  was  ever  opposed  by  the  Greek  and  orien- 
tal churches — It  has  ever  been  the  policy  of  the  Pope  to  dimin- 
ish the  power  of  bishops,  and  nothing  has  he  labored  more  to 
destroy  than  an  independent  Episcopacy.  No  barrier  stands 
so  much  in  his  way  now  as  the  Episcopacy  of  the  English 
church— and  that  of  the  independent  Eastern  dioceses ;  the 
independence  of  dioceses  presents,  in  fact,  the  most  effectual 
check  to  that  consolidation  of  power  which  Rome  has  long 
endeavored  to  effect  by  concentrating  all  rule  and  authority 
in  tRe  hands  of  the  Pope.  Our  own  system  of  church  govern- 
ment in  the  United  States  is  a  confederacy  of  independent 
dioceses — and  like  the  state  sovereignties,  by  having  each  its 
own  governor  and  legislative  assembly  or  council,  effectually 
counteracts  the  tendency  to  consolidation.  Once  more,  the 
canon  law  says :  "  As  the  translation,  the  depositioii  and 
resignation  of  bishops,  so  likewise  the  confirmation  of  those 
who  are  elected,  after  their  election,  is  reserved  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff  alone,  by  reason  of  the  spiritual  bond."  Not  one  word 
about  consecration.  These  are  the  claims  of  the  Pope — ex- 
orbitant enough  as  all  will  allow :  but  remember  that  these 
claims  were  not  always  admitted,  and  had  they  been  so,  we 
see  not  how  the  admitting  of  them  can  destroy  or  corrupt  the 
succession.  For  although  the  bishops  in  nearly  the  whole 
of  the  western  church  did  at  one  time  yield  to  and  acknow- 
ledge the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  still  that  did  not 
deprive  or  divest  them  of  the  right  and  authority  to  ordain — 
a  right  which  they  always  claimed  in  virtue  of  their  office, 
and  which  they  always  continued  to  exercise.  It  was  only 
so  late  as  the  council  of  Trent  in  the  16th  century,  that  the 
question  was  agitated  whether  the  bishops  held  their  office 
"de  jure  divino:"  or  "  de  jure  pontifico" — i.  e.  from  Christ 
or  the  pope.  The  archbishop  of  Grenada,  strenously  main- 
tained in  the  council,  that  "  wheresoever  a  bishop  shall  be, 
whether  in  Rome  or  in  Augubium,  all  are  of  the  same  merit, 


67 

ahd  of  the  same  priesthood,  and  all  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
He  inveighed  against  those  who  said  St.  Peter  had  ordained 
the  other  apostles,  bishops.  He  admonished  the  council  to 
study  the  scriptures  and  observe  that  power  to  teach  through- 
out the  world,  to  administer  the  sacraments  and  to  govern  the 
church,  is  equally  given  to  all.  And  therefore  as  the  Apostles 
had  authority,  not  from  Peter,  but  from  Christ,  so  the  succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles  have  not  power  from  Peter,  but  from  Christ 
himself."  The  archbishop  of  Paris  manfully  upheld  the  same 
sentiments,  nor  did  they  meet  with  opposition  in  the  council 
but  from  the  Monks,  Jesuits,  Legates  and  Cardinals.  It  is 
through  these,  who  are  not  of  the  regular  order  of  the  clergy, 
that  the  Pope  has  ever  endeavored  to  enlarge  and  strengthen 
his  power.     The  conclave  which  elects  the  Pope 

~  T      1      •      •  11       r       .  •   1        ■  Bv  whom  IS 

consists  01  seventy  cardmals  m  allj  of  which  six     the  Pope  him- 
only  are  bishops,  fifty  of  them  are  priests  and  the     '^'^"  elfpted? 
rest  deacons :  from  which  it  is  clear  that  he  relies  much  more 
upon  the  presbytery,  than  any  thing  else,  for  the  gift  and  main- 
tenance of  his  authority. 

But  suppose  for  argument's  sake  that  the  succession  does 
come  through  the  Roman  church — that  the  Pope  did  confirm 
the  election  of  bishops,  and  order  their  consecration  by  other 
bishops,  which  is  the  utmost  that  can  be  said,  does  this  invali- 
date or  vitiate  the  succession?  Why,  we  might  just  as  well 
say  that  the  pure  faith  or  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  which  all 
the  reformed  churches  now  teach,  is  corrupted  and  vitiated, 
because  it  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  Romanists.  They 
had  in  their  keeping  at  one  time  the  Bible,  to  the  very  same 
extent  that  they  had  in  their  keeping  the  power  of  ordination. 
If  the  word  of  salvation  has  been  transmitted  to  us  through 
their  instrumentality,  and  we  now  have  it  in  its  simplicity  and 
integrity,  why  may  we  not  have  the  authority  to  administer 
that  word,  transmitted  through  the  same  channel,  in  its  integ- 
rity also  .^  Were  the  doctrine  and  sacraments  of  Christ's  reli- 
gion corrupted  by  the  church  of  Rome? — so  was  the  order  of 
the  gospel.  Were  these  corruptions  rejected  and  thrown  off 
at  the  reformation,  in  respect  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel? — so 
\vere  they  also  in  respect  to  the  order  of  the  Gospel  ministry. 
So  that  there  exists  not  one  reason  for  rejecting  Episcopacy 
because  of  its  having  passed  through  the  Roman  church,  that 


68 

does  not  apply  with  equal  strength  on  the  same  grounds,  for 

rejecting  the  Gospel  itself. 

The  idea  that  the  succession  is  vitiated  by  its 

TllG     SUCCGS- 

sion  not  poliut-     having  come  through  an  impure  channel,  gains 
ed  by  the  me-     j-^q   countenance   whatever    from   the    sentiments 

dium     through  .  ^  .  ,  ,  .  _,, 

which    it     is     and  practice'  of  men  ni  other  thmgs.     Thus  the 
brought    down     ^^^^^^i  of  God  was  uot  less  his  truth  because  it 

to  U3. 

was  proclaimed  by  Balaam  and  afterwards  by 
Judas.  The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  not  less  a  sacrament  to 
him  who  receives  it,  because  the  minister  who  performs  itj 
shall  afterwards  prove  to  be  an  unholy  and  wicked  man.  His 
wickedness  furnishes  a  just  reason  for  depriving  him  of  office, 
but  affects  not  the  validity  of  the  act  which  he  executed,  by 
virtue  of  the  delegated  authority  with  which  he  was  invested. 
If  it  were  otherwise — if  our  faith  were  directed  to  the  minis- 
ter alid  not  to  Christ,  the  institutor  of  the  ordinance — and  if 
we  cannot  be  certain  of  receiving  the  sacraments  until  posi- 
tively certified  and  assured  of  the  piety  of  him  who  adminis- 
ters them,  we  never  can  be  certain  of  receiving  them  at  all. 

Again,  take  the  position  that  the  channel  of  transmission  cor- 
rupts that  which  descends  through  it,  and  what  do  you  make 
of  the  holy  Saviour  of  the  world  ?  Trace  the  line  of  succession 
through  which  the  promised  deliverer,  the  holy  seed  of  salva- 
tion, came  according  to  the  flesh,  and  then  ask  yourselves,  are 
you  prepared  to  admit  the  principles  contended  for  ?  There  is 
in  the  line  of  the  Saviour's  ancestry,  Kahal,  the  harlot — Tha- 
mar,  who  sought  and  obtained  incestuous  connexion  with  her 
own  father-in-law. — There  is  Ruth,  the  Moabitess,  the  offspring 
of  Lot  and  his  own  daughter — there  is  Bathsheba,  the  wife 
of  Uriah  the  Hittite,  who  admitted  the  adulterous  embraces  of 
David.  If  then  the  promised  seed  of  redemption  was  neither 
tainted  nor  destroyed  by  transmission  through  this  line  of  an- 
cestral succession — and  it  would  be  impious  to  say  so — why 
should  it  be  supposed  that  the  sjnritual  seed  for  the  ministra- 
tion of  salvation  has  suffered  injury  or  been  destroyed,  because 
some  of  the  agents  for  transmitting  it  have  shown  themselves 
as  unworthy  of  the  high  honor  vouchsafed  to  them,  as  those 
pointed  out  in  the  line  of  the  Saviour's  ancestry? 

But  let  us  carry  the  principle  contended  for,  to  its  practical 
Jesuits,  by  applying  it  to  those  who  most  strongly  urge  its  force. 


69 

The  bishops  of  the  British  church  were  in  communion  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  Rome  being  a  corrupt  church,  there- 
fore ordination  by  the  British  bishops  is  worth  nothing.  We 
might  ask  here,  what  then  was  the  worth  of  Mr.  Wesley's  ordi- 
nation, since  he  received  it  from  a  British  bishop?  But  we 
will  let  that  pass  for  the  present. 

The  great  plea  which  the  Methodists  put  in  to  .The  Metho- 
justify  their  separation  from  the  church,  and  their  paration. 
setting  up  a  different  communion,  v/as  that  the 
Church  of  England  was  a  corrupt  church.  In  the  letter  of 
the  Methodist  bishops  to  their  members  prefixed  to  their  book 
of  discipline,  they  quote  the  words  of  the  Messrs.  Wesley,  say- 
ing, "  God  then  (1737)  thrust  them  out  to  raise  a  holy  people." 
In  ch.  i.  s.  1.  they  speak  of  being  convinced  "  that  there  ivas  a 
great  deficiency  of  vital  religion  in  the  Church  of  England 
in  America.''^  The  book  of  discipline  proceeds  to  state*  that 
Mr.  John  Wesley  did  "  solemnly  set  ajiart  by  the  iinposition 
of  his  hands,  and  prayer,  Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of  civil  law, 
late  of  Jesus  College,  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  and  a 
Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  for  the  Episcopal 
office.^''*  Now  if  the  plea  of  corruption  can  be  made  good 
against  the  Church  of  England,  and  there  was  "  a  great  defi- 
ciency of  vital  piety"  in  it,  so  that  the  Methodists  felt  con- 
strained to  withdraw  and  set  up  for  themselves,  I  desire  to  ask 
whether  Mr.  Wesley's  maintaining  communion  with  this  cor- 
rupt church,  deficient  as  it  was  "  in  vital  piety,"  and  his  con- 
tinuing in  that  communion  to  the  day  of  his  death,  and  his 
declaring  that  he  believed  it  the  purest  national  church  in  the 
world — whether  all  this  does  not  destroy  the  validity  of  his 
ordination  of  Thomas  Coke,  L.  L.  D.,  Fellow  of  Jesus  College, 
Oxford,  (fcc.  &.C.  (fcc.  In  a  word,  if  communion  with  Rome 
destroy,  because  of  Rome's  corruptions,  the  ministerial  author- 
ity— does  not  the  communion  of  Mr.  Wesley  with  the  Church 
of  England  destroy,  because  of  its  corruptions,  his  authority  to 
ordain  also  ?  If  the  principle  contended  for  avail  in  one  case, 
why  not  in  both  ?     If  not  in  both,  why  in  either  1 

We  are  not  concerned  to  answer  these  questions,  Brethren : 
Nor  are  we  disposed  to  press  the  subject  further  at  present 
upon  the  attention  of  those  whose  sensibility  is  the  more  easily 

•  See  Appendix  C. 


70 

excited,  when  investigation  is  directed  to  the  weak  points  of 

their  system.     The  man  whose  title  deeds  are  defective,  above 

all  others,  is  sensitive  to  any  intimation  of  a  flaw  of  which 

he  is  painfully   conscious   himself     And  so  it  is  in  religious 

systems :  the  upholders  of  them  know  their  defects,  and  these 

they  keep  out  of  view  and  manifest  any  thing  but  a  gracious 

temper  towards  those  who  would  examine  into  them. 

A  summary        Ii^  conclusion,  we  would  just  remind  you,  that 

of  the  argu-  -^q  have  showed  from  scripture  that  the  office  of 
ment:  the  points  .    .  .  i         ,       •  t    i  , 

raised   and  de-    the  mmistry  IS  a  delegated  authority,  and  that  the 

termined.  ministry  of  the  Apostolic  church  consisted  of  three 

orders.  We  have  endeavored  to  establish  by  argument,  that 
a  ministry  thus  constituted  was  left  by  the  apostles  in  the 
church  when  they  quitted  the  earth.  We  have  arrayed  be- 
fore you  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses  to  prove  that  this 
ministry,  so  constituted,  was  continued  in  the  church  till  such 
time  as  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  that  it  prevailed  uni- 
versally and  without  a  single  exception  in  any  country.  We 
have  argued,  and  as  we  think  conclusively,  that  it  was  morally 
impossible  for  the  chain  of  Episcopal  succession  to  be  broken, 
and  that  any  such  alleged  interruption  is  destitute  of  proof. 
We  have  considered  the  objection  grounded  on  the  papal  cor- 
ruptions to  vitiate  or  invalidate  the  succession,  and  shown  that 
it  is  without  force.  It  may  be  asked  then  whether,  if  the  posi- 
tion we  take  upon  this  subject  be  made  good,  we  do  not  un- 
church all  other  denominations  of  Christians  and  leave  them 
DoEpiscopa-  ^°  *^®  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God?  I  reply, 
lians  unchurch  in  the  first  place,  we  do  not  unchurch  them.  It 
a    ot  ers.  ^^  ^^  inference  which  those  make  who,  by  a  vol- 

untary act  of  their  own,  have  separated  themselves  from  that 
order  of  the  gospel  which  we  have  endeavored  to  prove  was 
established  in  the  primitive  church.  It  is  therefore  unjust  and 
ungenerous  to  charge  us  with  consequences  which  do  not  flow 
from  any  act  of  ours,  but  which  are  the  legitimate  results  of 
their  own  deliberate  proceedings.  We  have  endeavored  in 
every  possible  way  consistent  with  christian  charity,  to  prevent 
these  divisions — and  come  what  may — charge  upon  us  what- 
ever men  may  please — we  can  never,  for  a  moment,  by  word 
or  act,  give  any  countenance  or  sanction,  to  the  infidel  maxim 
that  division  into  sects  is  advantageous  to  the  cause  of  truth 


71 

and  piety,  while  the  aifecting  prayer  of  Christ  for  the  unity 
of  his  church,  shall  be  received  and  acknowledged  as  part 
and  parcel  of  divine  revelation.  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through 
their  word ;  that  they  all  may  be  one ;  as  thou.  Father,  art  in 
me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us :  that  the 
world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me."  No,  we  shall  do 
all  we  can  by  declaring  the  truth  in  the  love  of  it,  and  by  fair 
argument — by  instructing  those  who  oppose  themselves  to  us, 
ui  the  spirit  of  meekness — and  by  endeavoring  to  keep  the 
unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  to  bring  all  believers 
to  "  that  agreement  in  the  faith  and  knowledge  of  God,  and 
that  ripeness  and  perfectness  of  age  in  Christ,  that  there  be 
left  no  place  among  them,  either  for  error  in  religion,  or  for 
viciousness  in  life." 

How  far  the  various  bodies  of  professed  chris-  If  we  must 

tians  around  us,  united  under  rules  and  regula-  pinion^of  "th- 
tions  for  their  government,  which  they  have  ^rs,  it  is  this. 
drawn  from  the  word  of  God,  and  sanctioned  by  what  they 
honestly  believe  to  be  a  just  and  fair  interpretation  of  its 
meaning — how  far  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  churches  of 
Christ,  I  shall  not  undertake  to  say.  I  honestly  think  it  is  a 
matter  admitting  of  serious  question.  While  I  freely  concede 
that  some  of  them  preach  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  that  this 
faith,  wherever  received,  will  manifest,  and  does  in  them  mani- 
fest, its  appropriate  fruits  in  righteousness — in  charity — and  in 
hope — still  candor  obliges  me  to  declare,  that  in  the  exercise  of 
the  best  reason  and  judgment  which  God  has  given  me,  and 
enlightened  by  all  the  information  which  the  most  diligent 
search  has  afforded  to  my  mind,  I  think  them  destitute  of  an 
essential  feature  or  mark  of  the  visible  Catholic  church  of 
Christ :  that  is,  a  ministry^  deriving  authority  to  act  iu  the 
appointments  of  religion,  from  the  Apostles.  At  the  same 
time,  I  grant  that  their  ecclesiastical  organizations  have  all  the 
force  and  obligation,  on  those  who  have  submitted  to  their  au- 
thority, which  the  most  solemn  vows  and  engagements  can 
bring  upon  the  soul.  Their  ordinances,  administered  by  the 
ministry  which  they  have — such  for  example,  as  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper — are  to  those  who  receive  them,  with  the 
understanding  they  have  of  their  nature  and  obligation,  prop- 


72 

erly  sacraments — just  as  much  so  as  an  oath  taken  before  a 
private  citizen,  instead  of  a  magistrate  or  judge,  is  binding  on 
the  conscience  of  him  who  takes  it. — See  Appendix  D. 

And  now  is  there  just  reason  to  charge  upon  such  sentiments 
the  odium  of  iUiberahty  and  uncharitableness?  It  is  often  said 
that  the  differences  among  christians  are  unimportant — not  of 
that  grave  and  serious  character  to  cause  emulations,  strifes  and 
divisions.  If  so,  why  do  not  those  who  have  gone  out  from  us, 
return?  and  why  should  every  attempt  like  the  present,  to 
state  the  true  grounds  of  difference  be  frowned  upon  as  ungra- 
cious and  be  met  by  weapons  which  calumny  employs  against 
stubborn  facts,  honest  statements  and  candid  and  fair  argu- 
ments? We  have  no  wish  whatever  to  multiply  causes  of 
difference  between  ourselves  and  other  denominations  of  chris- 
tians. On  the  contrary,  the  terms  of  communion  which  the 
Episcopal  church  requires  are  so  free  and  liberal,  as  more  fre- 
quently to  give  others  occasion  to  charge  her  with  laxity,  than 
afford  fair  opportunity  to  them,  as  she  justly  does,  to  commend 
her  catholic  spirit — she  offers  no  disputed  points  in  theology  as 
tests  to  her  members  of  the  soundness  of  their  christian  charac- 
ter, but  stating  the  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  Apostles'  creed  as 
the  articles  of  her  faith,  and  inculcating  charity,  she  prays  for 
"  all  who  profess  and  call  themselves  christians,  that  they  may 
be  led  into  the  way  of  truth,  and  hold  the  faith  in  unity  of  spirit, 
in  the  bond  of  peace  and  in  righteousness  of  life."  She  goes 
further,  and  in  accordance  with  the  Apostle's  directions  that 
prayers  and  supplications  be  offered  up  for  all  men — the  lan- 
guage of  her  liturgy  is  that  it  "  may  please  God  to  have  mercy 
upon  all  men."  She  stops  not  here,  but  in  obedience  to  the 
blessed  Saviour's  injunctions  and  in  the  spirit  of  his  meek  and 
lowly  example,  instructs  us  to  pray  "  that  it  may  please  thee 
to  forgive  our  enemies,  persecutors  and  slanderers,  and  to  turn 
their  hearts." 

Such  is  the  spirit  I  pray  may  rule  ever  more  in  my  heart — 
and  while  I  shall  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  deliv- 
ered to  the  saints,"  and  "  speak  the  truth  boldly  as  I  ought  to 
speak,"  God  being  my  helper,  I  shall  endeavor  to  utter  not  a 
word  or  sentiment  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  sincerity  and 
truth  in  which  that  prayer  should  be  offered. 


APPENDIX. 

A.  p.  60.  "  I  allow  that  each  state  ought  to  have  one  bishop 
of  its  own  by  divine  right ;  which  I  show  from  Paul,  saying 
— '  for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete.'  "     M.  Luther. 

"  The  bishops  might  easily  retain  the  obedience  due  unto 
them,  if  they  urged  us  not  to  keep  those  traditions  which  we 
cannot  keep  with  a  good  conscience."     Melancthon. 

"We  have  often  protested  that  we  do  greatly  approve  the 
ecclesiastical  polity  and  degrees  in  the  church,  and  as  much 
as  lieth  in  us,  do  desire  to  conserve  them."     Melancthon. 

"  /  would  to  God  it  lay  in  nie  to  restore  the  government  of 
bishops.  For  I  see  what  manner  of  church  we  shall  have, 
the  ecclesiastical  polity  being  dissolved.  I  do  see  that  here- 
after will  grow  up  in  the  church  a  greater  tyranny  than  there 
ever  was  before."     Melancthon. 

"  By  what  right  or  law  may  we  dissolve  the  ecclesiastical 
polity,  if  the  bishops  will  grant  to  us,  that  which  in  reason 
they  ought  to  grant?  And  if  it  were  lawful  for  us  to  do  so, 
yet  surely  it  were  not  expedient.  Luther  was  ever  of  this 
opinion^     Melancthon. 

"  Zuingle  has  sent  hither  in  print,  his  confession  of  faith. 
You  would  say  neither  more  nor  less,  than  that  he  is  not  in 
his  senses.  At  one  stroke,  he  would  abolish  all  ceremonies, 
and  he  would  have  no  bishops."     Melancthon. 

"  If  they  will  give  us  such  an  hierarchy,  in  which  the 
bishops  have  such  a  pre-eminence  as  that  they  do  not  refuse 
to  be  subject  unto  Christ,  I  will  confess  that  they  are  worthy 
of  all  anathemas,  if  any  such  there  be,  who  will  not  reve- 
rence it,  and  submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obe- 
dience."    Calvin. 

Of  Calvin's  Episcopal  opinions,  Mons.  Daille,  a  French 
protestant  divine  thus  writes — "  Calvin  honored  all  bishops  that 
were  not  subjects  of  the  Pope,  such  as  were  the  prelates  of 
England.     We  confess  that  the  foundation  of  their  charge  is 

10  • 


74 

good  and  lawful,  established  hy  the  Apostles  according  to  the 
command  of  Christ."  Bingham's  French  Church's  Apology 
for  the  Church  of  England. 

Mons.  De  L' Angle,  another  divine  of  the  same  church,  thus 
writes  to  the  bishop  of  London :  "  Calvin,  in  his  treatise  of  the 
necessity  of  the  Reformation,  makes  no  difficulty  to  say,  that 
if  there  should  be  any  so  tmreasonable  as  to  refuse  the  com- 
munion of  a  church  that  was  pure  in  its  worship  and  doctrine, 
and  not  to  submit  himself  with  respect  to  its  government,  under 
pretence,  that  it  had  retained  an  Episcopacy  qualified  as  yours 
is,  there  would  be  no  censure  or  rigor  of  discipline  that  ought 
not  to  be  exercised  upon  them."  Stillingfleet's  unreasonable- 
ness of  separation,  at  the  end. 

"  It  was  essential  that  hy  the  perpetual  ordination  of  God^ 
it  was,  it  is,  and  it  will  be  necessary,  that  some  one  in  the 
presbytery,  chief  both  in  place  and  dignity,  should  preside  to 
govern  the  proceedings,  by  that  right  which  is  given  him, 
of  God:'     Beza. 

"  In  my  writings  touching  church  government,  I  ever  im- 
pugned the  Romish  hierarchy,  but  never  intended  to  touch  or 
impugn  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  church  of  England." 
Beza. 

If  there  are  any,  as  you  will  not  easily  persuade  me,  who 
vv^ould  reject  the  Avhole  order  of  bishops,  God  forbid  that  any 
man  in  his  senses  should  assent  to  their  madness — "  Let  her 
(Church  of  England)  enjoy  that  singular  blessing  (Episcopacy) 
of  God,  which  I  pray  may  be  perpetual."     Beza. 

"  By  the  perpetual  observation  of  all  churches,  even  from  the 
Apostles^  tim,es,  we  see,  that  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost ^  that  among  presbyters,  to  whom  the  procuration  of 
churches  was  chiefly  committed,  there  should  be  one  that 
should  have  the  care  or  charge  of  divers  churches,  and  the 
whole  ministry  committed  to  him ;  and  by  reason  of  that 
charge  he  was  above  the  rest ;  and  therefore  the  name  of 
bishop  was  attributed  peculiarly  to  those  chief  rulers."  Bu- 
cer  de  cura,  &c. 

Of  the  Episcopate,  therefore,  that  is,  the  superiority  of  one 
Pastor  above  .the  rest,  we  first  determine  that  it  is  repugnant  to 
no  divine  law.  If  any  one  think  otherwise,  that  is,  if  any  one 
condemn  the  whole  ancient  church  of  folly  or  even  of  impiety, 


75 

the  burden  of  pi  oof  beyond  doubt  lies  upon  him ;  6cc.  The 
very  ministry  instituted  by  the  Apostles  sufTiciently  proves  that 
equality  of  the  Ecclesiastical  offices  was  not  commanded  by 
Christ.  We,  therefore,  first  lay  down  this,  which  is  undoubt- 
edly true,  that  it,  (viz :  the  Episcopate  or  superiority  of  one 
Pastor  above  the  rest,)  neither  can  or  ought  to  be  found  fault 
with ;  in  which  we  have  agreeing  with  us,  Zanchius,  Chemni- 
tius,  Hemmingius,  Calvin,  Melancthon,  Bucer,  and  even  Beza, 
as  thus  far  he  says,  that  one  certain  pei'son  chosen  by  the  judg- 
ment of  the  rest  of  his  co-preshyters  was  chief  over  the  pres- 
bytery and  7cas  permanently  so. 

Another  is,  that  that  Episcopate,  which  we  treat  of,  was 
received  by  the  universal  church.  This  appears  from  all  the 
councils,  whose  authority  now  likewise  is  very  great  among  the 
pious.  It  appears  also  from  an  examination  of  the  councils 
either  national  or  provincial,  of  which  there  is  almost  none 
which  does  not  show  manifest  signs  of  Episcopal  superiority. 
All  the  fathers,  without  exception,  testify  the  same,  of  whom 
he  who  shows  least  deference  to  the  Episcopate  is  Jerome, 
himself  not  a  bishop,  but  a  presbyter.  Therefore  the  testimony 
of  him  alone  is  sufficient :  "  It  was  decreed  through  the  whole 
world  that  one  chosen  from  the  presbyters  should  be  set  over 
the  rest,  to  whovi  all  care  of  the  church  should  belong^  In- 
deed this  error  of  Aerius  was  condemned  by  the  whole  church, 
that  he  said  that  a  Presbyter  ought  to  be  distinguished  from, 
a  bishop  by  no  difference.  Jerome  himself,  in  reply  to  him, 
who  had  written  that  there  is  no  difference  between  a  bishop 
ajid  a  presbyter.,  answered,  this  is  unskilfully  enough  to  make 
shipwreck  in  port,  as  it  is  said.  Even  Zanchius  acknowl- 
edges the  agreement  of  the  whole  church  in  this  matter. 

The  third  thing  is  this,  that  the  Episcopate  had  its  com- 
mencement in  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  The  catalogues  of  the 
bishops  in  Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  Socrates,  Theodoret,  and  others, 
all  of  which  begin  in  the  Apostolic  age,  testify  this.  But  to 
refuse  credit  in  a  historical  matter  to  so  great  authors,  and  so 
unanimous  among  themselves,  is  not  the  part  of  any  but  an 
irreverent  and  stubborn  disposition.  For  that  is  just  as  if  you 
should  deny  that  it  was  true,  what  all  histories  of  the  Romans 
declare,  that  the  consulate  began  from  the  expelled  Tarquins. 
But  let  us  hear  Jerome  again :  ^^At  Alexandria,^'  he  says,  ^-from 


76 

Mark  the  Evangelist  the  presbi/ters  alioays  named  one  chosen 
from  themselves,  placed  in  a  higher  degree,  bishop." 

Mark  died  in  the  8th  year  of  Nero:  to  whom  succeeded 
Anianus,  to  Anianus  Abilius,  to  AbiHus  Cerdo,  the  Apostle 
John  being  yet  alive.  After  the  death  of  James,  Simeon  had 
the  Episcopate  of  Jerusalem :  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
Linus,  Anacletus,  and  Clemens  had  the  Roman ;  and  Euodius 
and  Ignatius,  that  of  Antioch,  the  same  Apostle  still  living. 
This  ancient  history  is  surely  not  to  be  despised,  to  which 
Ignatius  himself,  the  contemporary  of  the  Apostles,  and  Justin 
Martyr  and  Irenasus,  who  followed  him  next,  afford  the  most 
open  testimony  which  there  is  no  need  to  transcribe.  '  Now 
indeed,^  says  Cyprian,  '  bishops  are  appointed  in  all  the 
provinces  and  in  every  city? 

Let  the  fourth  be,  that  this  bishop  was  approved  of  by  the 
Divine  law,  or  (as  Bucer  says)  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  one  among  the  presbyters  should  have  special 
charge.  The  divine  revelation  affords  to  this  assertion  an 
argument  not  to  be  withstood ;  for  Christ  himself  commands 
it  to  be  written  to  the  seven  angels  of  the  Asiatic  churches. 
Those  who  understand  the  churches  themselves  by  the  angels 
manifestly  contradict  the  sacred  writings.  For  the  candle- 
sticks are  the  churches,  says  Christ :  but  the  stars  are  the 
angels  of  the  seven  churches.  It  is  wonderful  whither  the 
humor  of  contradicting  may  not  carry  men,  when  they  dare  to 
confound  those  things  which  the  Holy  Spirit  so  evidently  dis- 
tinguished. We  do  not  deny  that  the  name  of  angel  may  be 
suited  to  every  Pastor  in  a  certain  general  signification :  but 
here  it  is  manifestly  written  to  one  in  every  church.  Was 
there  therefore  only  one  Pastor  in  every  city?  No,  indeed. 
For  even  in  Paul's  time  many  presbyters  were  appointed  at 
Ephesus  to  feed  the  church  of  God.  (Acts  xx.  17,  18.)  Why, 
therefore,  are  letters  sent  to  one  person  in  every  church,  if  no 
one  had  a  certain  peculiar  and  emine^it  function  ? "  After 
showing  that  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  among  the  Re- 
formers, Bullinger,  Beza,  Rainoldus,  agree  with  him  in  the 
representation :  he  says,  "  Christ,  therefore,  writing  to  those 
bishops,  thus  eminent  among  the  clergy,  undoubtedly  approved 
of  this  Episcopal  superiority."     Grotius. 

To  the  statements  and  argument  of  this  learned  presbyterian, 


77 

we  need  not  add  any  thing :  They  must  be  hard  indeed  to  con- 
vince who  are  proof  against  the  facts  and  reasoning  of  Grotius. 
The  foregoing  extracts  are  quoted  from  a  small  but  exceed- 
ingly vakiablc  compilation  by  the  bishop  of  New- Jersey,  en- 
titled "  a  word  for  the  church,"  to  which  the  reader  is  "  benev- 
olently" recommended.  To  obtain  it,  will  cost  very  little,  and 
its  perusal  may  confer  lasting  and  inappreciable  benefit. 

B.  p.  63.  "  Despairing  of  justifying  their  ordinations  from 
the  scriptures,  the  resort  of  dissenters  is  to  a  denial  of  the  epis- 
copal succession.  But  by  this  very  denial  they  show  how  im- 
portant it  is.  Now  that  there  has  been  a  body  of  men  in  the 
world  called  bishops  ever  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  is  as 
undeniable  as  that  there  has  been  a  body  of  christians.  One 
may  as  well  deny  the  continuance  of  the  human  race,  or  the 
succession  of  the  generations  of  men  as  the  continuance  and 
succession  of  bishops.  The  succession  of  bishops  as  a  body  of 
men,  then,  has  never  been  broken.  But  it  is  alledged  that  the 
succession  has  been  vitiated  by  irregular  admissions,  thus 
violating  the  law  upon  which  it  depends.  But  what  if  the 
allegation  were  true  ?  Suppose  there  have  been  men  profess- 
ing and  acknowledged  to  be  members  of  the  christian  church, 
who  have  never  been  baptized,  is  not  he  who  is  truly  baptized, 
now  a  member  of  the  church?  Suppose  that  men  have  occa- 
sionally assumed  the  office  of  a  presbyter,  and  been  allowed 
to  exercise  the  duties  and  functions  of  that  office  without  any 
ordination  at  all,  is  he  who  is  regularly  ordained  in  this  age 
any  the  less  a  presbyter  on  that  account  ?  Does  the  invalidity 
of  his  orders  or  the  fact  of  his  having  had  no  orders,  annihi- 
late the  order  in  the  ministry  to  which  he  pretended  to  belong  ? 
Most  certainly  not.  Neither  could  the  fact  (if  there  were  such 
an  one)  that  some  men  have  been  received  as  bishops  without 
a  regular  ordination  to  the  Episcopate,  destroy  the  order  of 
bishops,  or  make  him  who  is  regularly  ordained  in  this  age 
any  the  less  a  bishop,  than  if  no  such  irregularity  had  ever 
occurred.  But  suppose  they  could  prove  that  the  order  was 
lost,  what  would  they  gain?  Simply  a  freedom  from  the 
restraint  of  God's  laws,  a  liberty  to  follow  the  decrees  and 
desires  of  their  own  hearts. 


78 

But  let  us  haste  to  notice  the  alledged  breaks  in  the  siic- 
cession. 

1.  "  It  is  not  enough  to  state  the  fact  in  a  general  manner ; 
you  must  trace  the  succession  in  every  individual  case.  You 
are  a  priest:  I  go  to  you  for  baptism,  for  instance.  I  must 
closely  examine  your  authority  :  by  whom  were  you  ordained  ? 
By  the  Bishop  of  Vermont.  By  whom  was  the  Bishop  of 
Yermont  ordained?  (consecrated.)  And  by  whom  was  that 
individual  ordained  ?  and  so  on.  Are  you  prepared  to  answer 
these  questions  ?  Have  you  the  documents  to  prove  your  legit- 
imate pastoral  descent  from  Jesus  Christ  ?  Can  you  establish 
your-  ecclesiastical  pedigree  beyond  all  controversy?  I  ask 
nothing  unnecessary. 

1.  To  this,  I  reply  that  it  is  7iot  necessary  to  trace  the  suc- 
cession in  every  individual  case,  because  every  bishop  had 
three  to  ordain  him,  and  they  had  nine,  and  so  on.  Thus. 
the  individual  succession  becomes,  in  two  or  three  genera- 
tions, merged  in  the  general  succession,  and  if  there  were  but 
one  sound  and  valid  Bishop  in  a  nation  or  a  church  a  few 
generations  back,  all  their  bishops  would  be  sound  and  valid 
now.  For  instance :  it  appears  from  an  actual  comparison  of 
the  table  of  the  American  succession,  that  if  only  one  of  the 
bishops  in  this  country  forty  years  ago  had  been  valid,  all  would 
be  so  now ;  for  they  can  all  trace  their  succession  to  him. 

2.  I  can  give  the  succession  in  the  individual  case,  taking 
only  one  in  the  line,  whereas  there  are  in  fact  never  less  than 
three.  Hopkins,  Griswold,  White — Moore  of  Canterbury 
in  England ;  thence  by  the  line  of  Canterbury,  eighty-seven 
names,  to  Augustine,  A.  D.  596.  From  Augustine,  through 
Lyons,  to  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  thirty-one  names,  and  Poly- 
carp  was  ordained  by  St.  John,  and  ^S*^.  John  by  Jesus 
Christ.  Again,  by  the  same  line,  I  go  back  to  Theodore, 
ninth  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  A.  D.  688,  eighty-nine  names 
from  Bishop  Hopkins :  and  thence,  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome, 
seventy-six  names,  to  St.  Peter,  who  was  ordained  by 
Christ.  Again,  by  the  same  line,  I  go  back  to  Chicely, 
A.  D.  1414,  twenty-nine  names ;  and  thence  by  St.  Davids 
to  David,  A.  D.  519,  sixty-six  names,  thence  by  Jerusalem  to 
St.  James  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  fifty-one  names. 

Thus  Bishop  Hopkins,  from  whom  I  had  my  orders  is  the 


79 

121st  from  St.  John,  giving  about  14  years  for  each  bishop: 
165th  from  St.  Peter,  about  10  years  for  each  bishop :  146th 
from  St.  James,  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  about 
12  years  for  each  bishop. 

I  have  omitted  the  names  in  each  line  of  succession  for 
brevity's  sake ;  but  if  my  friends'  incredulity  will  not  be  over- 
come without,  I  will  furnish  every  one." 

REV.  VV.  D.  WILSON. 

Banner  of  the  Cross,  June,  10,  1843. 

"But  the  question  is  often  asked  can  the  succession  be 
traced  up  step  by  step  to  the  Apostles  ?  Is  there  no  breach  in 
it  which  would  invalidate  the  whole?  The  Master's  jyromlse 
'  lo !  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world,'  is 
enough  to  assure  the  humble  believer,  that  no  such  breach 
has  occurred,  or  can  occur  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Besides, 
the  uttnost  pains  have  always  been  taken  in  every  branch  of 
the  church  to  keep  the  succession  regular  and  pure.  Diocesan 
succession  and  Apostolical  succession  are  two  distinct  things. 
As  in  Maryland,  for  example,  we  have  had  four  Bishops,  but 
no  one  of  them  has  been  concerned  in  the  consecration  of  his 
successor.  So  that  a  vacancy  or  interregnum  in  a  particular 
Diocese — or  in  fifty  or  an  hundred  dioceses,  even  of  long  con- 
tinuance, does  not  affect  the  succession  in  the  least.  One  of 
the  Apostolical  canons  enjoins,  that  two  or  three  Bishops,  at 
least,  shall  unite  in  every  consecration.  The  succession  there- 
fore does  not  depend  upon  a  line  of  single  Bishops  in  one  Dio- 
cese running  back  to  the  Apostles — because  every  Bishop  has 
had  at  least  three  to  ordain  him  either  one  of  whom  had  power 
to  perpetuate  the  succession.  How  rapidly  do  the  securities 
multiply  as  we  go  back  !  Bishop  Whittingham  had  three  to 
ordain  him ;  his  ordainers  had  nine ;  at  the  third  step  there 
were  twenty-seven :  at  the  fourth  eighty-one :  at  the  fifth  two 
hundred  and  forty-three  :  and  so  on  increasing  in  a  three  fold 
proportion.  Now  if  any  one  of  the  entire  number  to  whom 
Bishop  W's.  consecration  may  be  traced  back  had  a  valid  ordi- 
nation, the  succession  is  in  him,  and  he  can  transmit  it  to  any 
other  in  whose  consecration  he  may  assist. 

The  securities  therefore  are  incalculably  strong,  and  the 
claim  of  any  duly  consecrated  bishop  to  the  Apostolic  suc- 
cession, is  more  certain  than  that  of  any  monarch  upon  earth 


80 


to  his  hereditary  crown.  Lists  of  the  Apostolical  succession, 
in  descent  from  the  different  Apostles,  have  been  carefully 
preserved  by  Eusebius  and  other  early  Avriters — and  they 
have  been  continued  in  different  lines  down  to  the  present 
day.  Any  reader  who  desires  to  consult  them,  is  referred  to 
Per  civ  al  on  Apostolical  succession,  and  Chapiii's  primitive 
church.  Rome  may  trace  its  line  to  St,  Peter — the  Greeks  to 
St.  Paul— the  Syrians  and  Nestorians  to  St.  Thomas  and  the 
American  Episcopal  church  to  St.  John. 

Bishop  White,  the  head  of  the  American  line  of  bishops  was 
consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  We  will  there- 
fore present  a  list  beginning  with  St.  John,  and  coming  through 
the  Episcopate  of  Lyons,  in  France  or  Gaul,  and  that  of  Can- 
terbury in  England,  till  it  connects  with  ours  in  the  United 
States  of  America. 


St.  John. 

1.  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna. 
Bishops  of  Lyons. 

1.  Pothinus. 

2.  Irenseus. 

3.  Zacharias. 

4.  Elias. 

5.  Faustinus. 

6.  Verus. 

7.  Julius. 

8.  Ptolemy. 

9.  Vocius. 

10.  Maximus. 

11.  Tetradus. 

12.  Verissimus. 

13.  Justus. 

14.  Albinus. 

15.  Martin. 

16.  Antiochus. 

17.  Elpidius. 

18.  Sicarius. 

19.  Eucherius,  1. 

20.  Patiens. 

21.  Lupicuus. 

22.  Rusticus. 

23.  Stephanus. 

24.  Viventiolus. 

25.  Eucherius,  2. 

26.  Lupus. 

27.  Licontius. 

28.  Sacerdos. 

29.  Nicetus. 

30.  Priscus. 

31.  vEtherius,  A.  D.  589. 


32. 
33. 
from 
St. 
John. 


CANTERBURY. 

A.  D.  596,  Augustine,  mis- 
sionary to  the  Anglo  Sax- 
ons, was  consecrated  by 
Virgilius,  24th  Bishop  of 
Aries,  assisted  by  iEtheri- 
us,  31st  Bishop  of  Lyons. 


34. 

Lawrence,               A.  D. 

605. 

35. 

Mellitus,      • 

•» 

619. 

36. 

Justus, 

tt 

624. 

37. 

Honorius, 

i( 

634. 

38. 

Adeodatus, 

i( 

654. 

39. 

Theodore, 

n 

688. 

40. 

Brithw^ald, 

t( 

693. 

41. 

Tatwine, 

tt 

731 

42. 

Nothelm, 

i( 

735. 

43. 

Cuthbert, 

11 

742. 

44. 

Bregwin, 

" 

759. 

45. 

Lambert, 

11 

763. 

46. 

iEthelred,  1. 

11 

793. 

47. 

Wulfred, 

»' 

803. 

48. 

Theogild  or  Feogild, 

11 

830. 

Consecrated  June  5th,  and 

died  Sept.  3rd. 

49. 

Ceolnoth,  Sept,  11. 

830. 

50. 

^thelred,  2. 

871. 

51. 

Phlegmund, 

891. 

52. 

Anthelm  or  } 
Adelra,         $ 

923. 

53. 

Wulfelra, 

928. 

54. 

Odo  Sever  us, 

941. 

55. 

Dunstan, 

959. 

56. 

iEthelgar, 

988. 

81 


90.  Wm.  Courtney,   "  1381. 

91.  Thos.  Ai-undle,    "  1396. 

92.  Henry  Chichely,      "  1414. 

93.  John  Stafford,           "  1443. 

94.  John  Kemp,              "  1452. 

95.  Thos.  Bourcher,       "  1454. 

96.  John  Morton,            "  1486. 

97.  Henry  Dean,             "  1501. 

98.  Wm.  Wareham,      "  1503. 

99.  Thos.  Cranmer,    "  1533. 

100.  Reginald  Pole,          "  1555. 

101.  Matthew  Parker,      "  1559. 

102.  Ed.  Grindall,  Dec.    "  1573- 

103.  John  AVliitgift,          "  1583. 

104.  Richard  Bancroft,    "  1604- 

105.  George  Abbott,          "  lOll- 

106.  AVm.  Laud,               "  1633. 

107.  Wm.  Juxon,              "  1660. 

108.  Gilbert  Sheldon,       "  1663. 

109.  Wm.  Sancroft,         "  1677. 

110.  John  Tillotson,         "  1691. 

111.  Thos.  Tennison,       "  1694. 

112.  Wm.  Wake,             "  1715. 

113.  John  Potter,              "  1737. 

114.  Thos,  Seeker,           "  1738. 

115.  Thos.  Herring,         "  1747. 

116.  Matthew  Hutton,     "  1757. 

117.  Frederick  Cornwallis,  1768. 

118.  John  Moore,             "  1783. 

119.  fi-om  St.  John  is  William 
White  of  Pennsylvania,  consecrated 
February  the  4th,  1787,  by  John 
Moore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
assisted  by  the  Archbishop  of  York, 
the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and 
the  Bishop  of  Peterborough. 

The  compilers  of  the  hsts  from  which  the  above  was  taken 
have  consulted  the  best  authorities,  and  no  more  doubt  of  its 
authenticity  can  be  entertained,  than  of  any  chronological  table 
of  historical  events,  or  list  of  the  sovereigns  of  any  country, 
drawn  from  its  official  registers  and  archives.  The  dates  at- 
tached to  the  names  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  indi- 
cate, in  several  instances,  not  the  time  of  their  consecration  but 
of  their  translation  to  that  see."     Rev.  Dr.  Henshaw. 


57. 

Siricus, 

(( 

989. 

58. 

Aluricus  or  ) 
Alfricus,       ^ 

(t 

996. 

59. 

Elphege, 
Eiving  or        ) 

t( 

1005. 

60, 

Leoning  or     > 

" 

1013. 

Elkskan,          3 

61. 

Agelnoth  or  iEthelst 

u 

1020. 

62. 

Edsin  or  Elsin, 

" 

1038. 

63. 

Robert  Geraeticensis 

" 

1050. 

64. 

Stigand, 

t( 

1052. 

65. 

Lanft-anc, 

(( 

1077. 

66. 

Ansel  m. 

«' 

1093. 

67. 

Rodulph, 

tl 

1114. 

68. 

Wm.  Corboil, 

t( 

1122. 

69. 

Theobold, 

" 

1138. 

70. 

Thomas  a  Becket, 

" 

1162. 

71. 

Richard, 

(I 

1174. 

72. 

Baldwin  Fordensis, 

n 

1184. 

73. 

Reginald  Fitz  Joceline, 

1191. 

74. 

Hubert  Walten, 

(( 

1193. 

75. 

Stephen  Langton, 

" 

1207. 

76. 

Richard  Wethersfield, 

1229, 

77. 

Edmund, 

1234. 

78. 

Boniface, 

1245, 

79. 

Rob.  Kilwarby, 

1272. 

80. 

.Tohn  Peckham, 

1278. 

81. 

Rob.  Winchesly, 

1294. 

82. 

Walter  Regnold, 

1313. 

83. 

Simon  Mepham. 

1328. 

84. 

John  Startford, 

1333. 

85. 

Thos.  Bradwardine, 

1348. 

86. 

Simon  IsHp, 

1349. 

87. 

Simon  Langham, 

1366. 

88. 

Wm.  Whittlesey, 

1368. 

89. 

Simon  Sudbury, 

1374. 

C.  p.  69.  The  following  extracts  will  not  be  without  inter- 
est to  those  concerned  to  investigate  the  claims  of  Methodist 
Episcopacy. 

"  To  all  [to]  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John  Wesley, 

11 


82 

late  fellow  of  Lincoln  College  in  Oxford,  Presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  Etigland,  sendeth  greeting :  Whereas  many  of  the 
people  in  the  southern  provinces  in  North  America,  who  desire 
to  continue  under  my  care,  and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  greatly  distressed 
for  want  of  ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper  according  to  the  usage  of  the  same 
church;  and  whereas  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other 
way  of  supplying  them  with  ministers — 

Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself  to  be 
providentially  called  at  this  time  to  set  apart  some  persons  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry  in  America.  And  therefore,  under 
the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and  with  a  single  eye  to  his 
glory,  I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  superintendent,  by  the 
imposition  of  my  hands  and  prayer,  being  assisted  by  other 
ordained  ministers,  Thomas  Coke,  doctor  of  civil  law,  a  pres- 
byter of  the  Church  of  England,  and  a  man  whom  1  judge 
to  be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work.  And  I  do  hereby 
recommend  him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern  as  a  fit  person 
to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  testimony  whereof,  I 
have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal,  this  second  day  of  Sep- 
tember 1784.  JOHN  WESLEY. 

Mr.  Wesley  being  only  a  Presbyter,  and  Thomas  Coke  being 
also  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  we  may  surely 
with  reason  ask,  what  additional  power  or  authority  could 
Wesley's  imposition  of  hands  confer  on  Coke?  Might  not 
Coke,  being  a  Presbyter,  just  with  the  same  propriety  have 
laid  hands  on  Wesley  ?  If  presbyter  and  bishop,  be  the  same 
order,  as  is  contended,  then  what  use  or  reason  was  there  for 
ordaining  Coke?  If  presbyter  and  bishop  be  not  the  same, 
then  Wesley  being  no  bishop  could  not  confer  the  episcopal 
office  on  Coke. 

Under  the  commission  of  Wesley  as  above,  Dr.  Coke  came 
to  America  and  met  the  Methodist  conference  at  Baltimore. 
In  the  space  of  forty-eight  hours  he  ordained  Mr.  Asbury  dea- 
con, presbyter  and  bishop,  and  afterwards  united  with  him  in 
an  address  to  General  Washington — Coke  and  Asbury  signing 
the  address  as  bishops. 

In  what  light  Mr.  Wesley  regarded  this  assumption  of  the 


83 

title  of  bishop  by  his  superintendents  may  be  seen  from  the 
following  extract  of  a  letter  addressed  by  him  to  Mr.  Asbury, 
under  date  of  September  20th,  1788. 

"  One  instance  of  this,  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great 
concern.  How  can  you,  how  dare  you  suffer  yourself  to  be 
called  bishop?  I  shudder  and  start  at  the  very  thought. 
For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end 
to  this." 

Let  us  now  see  what  estimate  Dr.  Coke  himself  put  upon 
his  ordination  as  a  Bishop.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  Bishop 
White  of  Pennsylvania,  dated  April  24,  1791,  nearly  two 
months  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  an  event  of  which  he 
had  not  then  heard,  he  proposes  a  reunion  of  the  Methodists 
with  the  church,  and  says  "  I  do  not  think  that  the  generality 
of  them,  (the  Methodist  Ministers)  perhaps  none  of  them  would 
refuse  to  submit  to  a  re-ordination,  if  other  hindrances  were 
removed  out  of  the  way."  If  Dr.  Coke  thought  that  he  was 
really  invested  with  power  to  ordain  ministers  in  the  church 
of  God  and  had  so  ordained  them,  how  could  he  for  a  moment 
tolerate  the  idea  of  a  re-ordhiation  7  In  a  letter  addressed  to 
Bishop  Seabury  of  Connecticut,  dated  May  14,  1791 — only 
three  weeks  after  that  to  Bishop  White,  he  is  more  full  and 
explicit.  He  says,  "  for  five  or  six  years  after  my  union  with 
Mr.  Wesley,  I  remained  fixed  in  my  attachments  to  the  Church 
of  England :  but  afterwards  for  many  reasons  which  it  would 
be  tedious  and  useless  to  mention,  I  changed  my  sentiments, 
and  promoted  a  separation  from  it  as  far  as  my  influence 
reached.  Within  these  two  years  I  am  come  back  again : 
my  love  for  the  Church  of  England  has  returned.  I  think  t 
am  attached  to  it  on  a  ground  much  more  rational,  and  con- 
sequently much  less  likely  to  be  shaken  than  formerly.  I  have 
many  a  time  run  into  error ;  but  to  be  ashamed  of  confessing 
my  error  when  convinced  of  it,  has  never  been  one  of  my  de- 
fects. Therefore  when  I  was  fully  convinced  of  my  error  in 
the  steps  I  took  to  bring  about  a  separation  from  the  Church  of 
England,  in  Europe,  I  delivered  before  a  congregation  of  about 
three  thousand  people,  in  our  largest  chapel  in  Dublin,  on  a 
Sunday  evening,  after  preaching,  an  exhortation,  which,  in  fact, 
amounted  to  a  recantation  of  my  error.  Sometime  afterward, 
I  repeated  the  same  in  our  largest  chapels  in  London,  and  in 


84 

several  other  parts  of  England  and  Ireland :  and  I  have  reason 
to  believe  that  my  proceedings  in  this  respect  have  given  a 
death  blow  to  all  the  hopes  of  a  separation  which  may  exist 
in  the  minds  of  any  in  those  kingdoms. 

On  the  same  principles  I  most  cordially  wish  for  a  reunion 
of  Protestant  Episcopal  and  the  Methodist  Churches  in  these 
States.  *  *  *  How  great,  then,  would  be  the  strength  of 
our  church  (will  you  give  me  leave  to  call  it  so  ?  I  mean  the 
Protestant  Episcopal)  if  the  two  sticks  were  made  one  ?  *  * 
*  *  Now,  on  a  reunion  taking  place,  our  ministers  both  elders 
and  deacons,  would  expect  to  have,  and  ought  to  have,  the 
same  authority  they  have  at  present,  of  administering  the 
ordinances  according  to  the  respective  powers  already  invested 
in  them  for  this  purpose.  I  well  knoiv  that  they  must  submit 
to  a  re-ordination  which  I  believe  might  be  easily  brought 
about  if  every  other  hindrance  was  removed  out  of  the  way. 
But  the  grand  objection  would  arise  from  the  want  of  confi- 
dence which  the  deacons  and  unordained  preachers  would 
experience." 

The  Dr's.  plan  for  removing  this  objection  is  seen  in  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  But  if  the  two  houses  of  the  Convention  (he  refers 
to  the  General  Convention-of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church) 
of  the  clergy  would  consent  to  your  consecration  of  Mr.  As- 
bury  and  me  as  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States,  (or  by  any 
other  title,  if  that  be  not  proper,)  on  the  supposition  of  the  re- 
union of  the  tw'o  churches  under  proper  mutual  stipulations ; 
and  engage  that  the  Methodist  Society  shall  have  a  regular 
supply,  on  the  death  of  their  Bishops,  and  so,  ad  perpetuum^ 
the  grand  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  preachers  would  be  re- 
moved— they  would  have  the  same  men  to  confide  in  whom 
they  have  at  present,  and  all  other  mutual  stipulations  would 
soon  be  settled."  So.  Churchm,an,  June  9,  1843, 

We  offer  but  one  more  extract.  In  a  letter  addressed  to 
Mr.  Wilberforce,  he  says,  *  *  "if  his  Royal  Highness,  the 
Prince  Regent  'and  the  government  should  think  proper  to  ap- 
point nie  their  Bishop  in  India,  I  should  m,ost  cheerfully  and 
most  gratefully  accept  of  the  offer.  *****  Jn  my 
letter  to  Lord  Liverpool  I  observed  that  I  should,  in  case  of  Thy 


85 

apjjointment  to  the  Episcopacy  of  India,  return  most  fully 
and  faithfully  into  the  bosom  of  the  Established  Church,  and 
do  every  thing  in  my  poxcer  to  promote  its  interests,  and 
would  submit  to  all  such  restrictions  in  the  fulfilment  of  my 
office,  as  the  Government  and  the  Bench  of  Bishops  at  home 
should  think  necessary.'''' — Ed.  Rev.,  No.  cxlv.  1840. 

The  preceding  requires  no  comment.  Conclusions  against 
Dr.  Coke's  Episcopal  authority  or  character  are  inevitable  and 
irresistible. 

D.  p.  72.  The  subjoined  extracts  from  a  sermon  preached 
by  Mr.  Wesley,  May  4th,  1789,  less  than  two  years  before  his 
death,  will  show  in  what  light  he  regarded  the  claim  of  his 
preachers  to  administer  sacraments.     The  text  is  Heb.  v.  4. 

"  In  1744,  all  the  Methodist  preachers  had  their  first  confer- 
ence. But  none  of  them  dreamed  that  the  being  called  to 
preach,  gave  them  any  right  to  administer  sacraments.  And 
when  that  question  was  proposed,  in  what  light  are  we  to  con- 
sider ourselves?  it  was  answered,  as  extraordinary  messen- 
gers, raised  up  to  provoke  the  ordinary  ones  to  jealousy.  In 
order  hereto,  one  of  our  first  rules  was  given  to  each  preacher, 
you  are  to  do  that  part  of  the  work  which  we  appoint.  But 
what  ivork  was  this?  Did  we  ever  appoint  you  to  administer 
sacraments?  to  exercise  the  priestly  office?  Such  a  design 
never  entered  into  our  mind;  it  was  the  farthest  from  our 
thoughts:  and  if  any  preacher  had  taken  such  a  step,  we 
should  have  looked  upon  it  as  a  palpable  breach  of  this  rule 
and  consequently  a  recantation  of  our  connexion. 

For  supposing  (what  I  utterly  deny,)  that  the  receiving  you 
as  a  preacher  at  the  same  time  gave  an  authority  to  administer 
the  sacraments,  yet  it  gave  you  no  other  authority  than  to  do 
it,  or  any  thing  else,  where  I  appoint.  But  when  did  I  appoint 
you  to  do  this  ?  No  where  at  all.  Therefore  by  this  very  rule 
you  are  excluded  from  doing  it,  and  in  doing  it,  you  renounce 
the  very  first  principle  of  Methodism,  which  was  wholly  and 
solely  to  preach  the  gospel.  I  wish  all  of  you  who  are  vulgarly 
termed  Methodists  would  seriously  consider  what  has  been 
said.  And  particularly  you  whom  God  hath  commissioned  to 
call  sinners  to  repentance.  It  does  by  no  means  follow  from 
hence,  that  ye  are  commissioned  to  baptize  or  administer  the 


86 

Lord's  supper.  Ye  never  dreamed  of  this,  for  ten  or  twenty 
3rears  after  ye  began  to  preach.  Ye  did  not  then  hke  Korah, 
Dathan  and  Abiram,  "  seek  the  priesthood  also."  Ye  knew 
"  no  man  taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called 
of  God  as  was  Aaron  ! "  O  contain  yourselves  within  your  own 
bounds,  be  content  with  preaching  the  Gospel ;  "  do  the  work 
of  Evangelists,"  proclaim  to  all  the  world  the  loving  kindness 
of  God  our  Saviour ;  declare  to  all,  "  The  kingdom  of  Heaven 
is  at  hand :  repent  ye  and  believe  the  Gospel ! "  I  earnestly 
advise  you,  abide  in  your  place ;  keep  your  own  station.  Ye 
were,  fifty  years  ago,  those  of  you  that  were  then  Methodist 
preachers,  extraordinary  messengers  of  God,  not  going  in  your 
own  will,  but  thrust  out,  not  to  supersede,  but  to  provoke  to 
jealousy  the  ordinary  messengers.  In  God's  name,  stop  there  ! " 
Alas !  this  voice  of  warning  and  remonstrance  was  uttered 
in  vain.  The  Methodists  have  long  since,  in  this  country  at 
least,  completed  their  schism,  and  though  professing  to  derive 
ministerial  authority  from  Wesley,  and  to  be  but  slightly  re- 
moved from  the  doctrine  and  government  of  the  church,  yet 
few  others  have  found  to  manifest  a  more  determined  spirit  of 
hostility  to  the  prevalence  of  her  worship,  the  spread  of  her 
principles,  and  the  increase  of  her  members. 


THE  LIBRARY 

TTMTtrcocTT'V  r\T?  rATTKYM?MI* 


5937      Obey  - 

d87u     The  unity  of 
the   church. 


L  007  118  979  9 


EX 

5937 

(j87u 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  la; 
date  stamped  below 


M 


;/- 


y^r 
.»-» 


riy^  .   .J         s. 


